Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.14096

Concisely Explaining the Doubt: Minimum-Size Abductive Explanations for Linear Models with a Reject Option

Gleilson Pedro Fernandes·Thiago Alves Rocha
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Trustworthiness in artificial intelligence depends not only on what a model decides, but also on how it handles and explains cases in which a reliable decision cannot be made. In critical domains such as healthcare and finance, a reject option allows the model to abstain when evidence is insufficient, making it essential to explain why an instance is rejected in order to support informed human intervention. In these settings, explanations must not only be interpretable, but also faithful to the underlying model and computationally efficient enough to support real-time decision making. Abductive explanations guarantee fidelity, but their exact computation is known to be NP-hard for many classes of models, limiting their practical applicability. Computing \textbf{minimum-size} abductive explanations is an even more challenging problem, as it requires reasoning not only about fidelity but also about optimality. Prior work has addressed this challenge in restricted settings, including log-linear-time algorithms for computing minimum-size abductive explanations in linear models without rejection, as well as a polynomial-time method based on linear programming for computing abductive explanations, without guarantees of minimum size, for linear models with a reject option. In this work, we bridge these lines of research by computing minimum-size abductive explanations for linear models with a reject option. For accepted instances, we adapt the log-linear algorithm to efficiently compute optimal explanations. For rejected instances, we formulate a 0-1 integer linear programming problem that characterizes minimum-size abductive explanations of rejection. Although this formulation is NP-hard in theory, our experimental results show that it is consistently more efficient in practice than the linear-programming-based approach that does not guarantee minimum-size explanations.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Gleilson Pedro Fernandes, Thiago Alves Rocha. 2026-03-14. Concisely Explaining the Doubt: Minimum-Size Abductive Explanations for Linear Models with a Reject Option. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14096

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗