Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jose Caraball
dblp:359/3366
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › logic-based explanation › rule-based explanation
decision tree explanation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Uniform Language to Explain Decision Trees · KR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Uniform Language to Explain Decision Trees · KR 2024 |
Logic in computer science
finite model theory |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Uniform Language to Explain Decision Trees · KR 2024 |
Logic in computer science
first-order logic |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Uniform Language to Explain Decision Trees · KR 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
SAT solving · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | A Uniform Language to Explain Decision TreesabstractThe formal XAI community has studied a plethora of interpretability queries aiming to understand the classifications made by decision trees. However, a more uniform understanding of what questions we can hope to answer about these models, traditionally deemed to be easily interpretable, has remained elusive. In an initial attempt to understand uniform languages for interpretability, Arenas et al. proposed FOIL, a logic for explaining black-box ML models, and showed that it can express a variety of interpretability queries. However, we show that FOIL is limited in two important senses: (i) it is not expressive enough to capture some crucial queries, and (ii) its model agnostic nature results in a high computational complexity for decision trees. In this paper, we carefully craft two fragments of first-order logic that allow for efficiently interpreting decision trees: Q-DT-FOIL and its optimization variant OPT-DT-FOIL. We show that our proposed logics can express not only a variety of interpretability queries considered by previous literature, but also elegantly allows users to specify different objectives the sought explanations should optimize for. Using finite model-theoretic techniques, we show that the different ingredients of Q-DT-FOIL are necessary for its expressiveness, and yet that queries in Q-DT-FOIL can be evaluated with a polynomial number of queries to a SAT solver, as well as their optimization versions in OPT-DT-FOIL. Besides our theoretical results, we provide a SAT-based implementation of the evaluation for OPT-DT-FOIL that is performant on industry-size decision trees. Marcelo Arenas, Pablo Barceló, Diego Bustamante, Jose Caraball, Bernardo Subercaseaux |
KR | 4 |