arXiv subjects

Eric Günther

Publications and source records attributed to Eric Günther.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

We Need Explanation Cards to Connect Explanation Algorithms to the Real World

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Informative Post-Hoc Explanations Only Exist for Simple Functions

Many researchers have suggested that local post-hoc explanation algorithms can be used to gain insights into the behavior of complex machine learning models. However, theoretical guarantees about such algorithms only exist for simple decision functions, and it is unclear whether and under which assumptions similar results might exist for complex models. In this paper, we introduce a general, learning-theory-based framework for what it means for an explanation to provide information about a decision function. We call an explanation informative if it serves to reduce the complexity of the space of plausible decision functions. With this approach, we show that many popular explanation algorithms are not informative when applied to complex decision functions, providing a rigorous mathematical rejection of the idea that it should be possible to explain any model. We then derive conditions under which different explanation algorithms become informative. These are often stronger than what one might expect. For example, gradient explanations and counterfactual explanations are non-informative with respect to the space of differentiable functions, and SHAP and anchor explanations are not informative with respect to the space of decision trees. Based on these results, we discuss how explanation algorithms can be modified to become informative. While the proposed analysis of explanation algorithms is mathematical, we argue that it holds strong implications for the practical applicability of these algorithms, particularly for auditing, regulation, and high-risk applications of AI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Disentangling Interactions and Dependencies in Feature Attribution

In explainable machine learning, global feature importance methods try to determine how much each individual feature contributes to predicting the target variable, resulting in one importance score for each feature. But often, predicting the target variable requires interactions between several features (such as in the XOR function), and features might have complex statistical dependencies that allow to partially replace one feature with another one. In commonly used feature importance scores these cooperative effects are conflated with the features' individual contributions, making them prone to misinterpretations. In this work, we derive DIP, a new mathematical decomposition of individual feature importance scores that disentangles three components: the standalone contribution and the contributions stemming from interactions and dependencies. We prove that the DIP decomposition is unique and show how it can be estimated in practice. Based on these results, we propose a new visualization of feature importance scores that clearly illustrates the different contributions.

cs.LG↗