Polyhedral geometry can be used to shed light on the behaviour of piecewise linear neural networks, such as ReLU-based architectures. Counterfactual explanations are a popular class of methods for examining model behaviour by comparing a query to the closest point with a different label, subject to constraints. We present a new algorithm, Polyhedral-complex Informed Counterfactual Explanations (PICE), which leverages the decomposition of the piecewise linear neural network into a polyhedral complex to find counterfactuals that are provably minimal in the Euclidean norm and exactly on the decision boundary for any given query. Moreover, we develop variants of the algorithm that target popular counterfactual desiderata such as sparsity, robustness, speed, plausibility, and actionability. We empirically show on four publicly available real-world datasets that our method outperforms other popular techniques to find counterfactuals and adversarial attacks by distance to decision boundary and distance to query. Moreover, we successfully improve our baseline method in the dimensions of the desiderata we target, as supported by experimental evaluations.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has received widespread interest in recent years, and two of the most popular types of explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. These classes of approaches have been largely studied independently and the few attempts at reconciling them have been primarily empirical. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions, focusing on but not limited to SHAP, and counterfactuals explanations. After motivating operative changes to Shapley values based feature attributions and counterfactual explanations, we prove that, under conditions, they are in fact equivalent. We then extend the equivalency result to game-theoretic solution concepts beyond Shapley values. Moreover, through the analysis of the conditions of such equivalence, we shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances. Experiments on three datasets quantitatively show the difference in explanations at every stage of the connection between the two approaches and corroborate the theoretical findings.

Feature selection is a crucial step in building machine learning models. This process is often achieved with accuracy as an objective, and can be cumbersome and computationally expensive for large-scale datasets. Several additional model performance characteristics such as fairness and robustness are of importance for model development. As regulations are driving the need for more trustworthy models, deployed models need to be corrected for model characteristics associated with responsible artificial intelligence. When feature selection is done with respect to one model performance characteristic (eg. accuracy), feature selection with secondary model performance characteristics (eg. fairness and robustness) as objectives would require going through the computationally expensive selection process from scratch. In this paper, we introduce the problem of feature reselection, so that features can be selected with respect to secondary model performance characteristics efficiently even after a feature selection process has been done with respect to a primary objective. To address this problem, we propose REFRESH, a method to reselect features so that additional constraints that are desirable towards model performance can be achieved without having to train several new models. REFRESH’s underlying algorithm is a novel technique using SHAP values and correlation analysis that can approximate for the predictions of a model without having to train these models. Empirical evaluations on three datasets, including a large-scale loan defaulting dataset show that REFRESH can help find alternate models with better model characteristics efficiently. We also discuss the need for reselection and REFRESH based on regulation desiderata.

Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.

We propose a general method for generating counterfactual explanations (CFXs) for a range of Bayesian Network Classifiers (BCs), e.g. single- or multi-label, binary or multidimensional. We focus on explanations built from relations of (critical and potential) influence between variables, indicating the reasons for classifications, rather than any probabilistic information. We show by means of a theoretical analysis of CFXs’ properties that they serve the purpose of indicating (potentially) pivotal factors in the classification process, whose absence would give rise to different classifications. We then prove empirically for various BCs that CFXs provide useful information in real world settings, e.g. when race plays a part in parole violation prediction, and show that they have inherent advantages over existing explanation methods in the literature.