arXiv subjects

Joao Marques-Silva

Publications and source records attributed to Joao Marques-Silva.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Solving QBF by Clause Selection

Algorithms based on the enumeration of implicit hitting sets find a growing number of applications, which include maximum satisfiability and model based diagnosis, among others. This paper exploits enumeration of implicit hitting sets in the context of Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF). The paper starts by developing a simple algorithm for QBF with two levels of quantification, which is shown to relate with existing work on enumeration of implicit hitting sets, but also with recent work on QBF based on abstraction refinement. The paper then extends these ideas and develops a novel QBF algorithm, which generalizes the concept of enumeration of implicit hitting sets. Experimental results, obtained on representative problem instances, show that the novel algorithm is competitive with, and often outperforms, the state of the art in QBF solving.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2026

Solving QBF with Counterexample Guided Refinement

We propose two novel approaches for using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) in Quantified Boolean Formula (QBF) solvers. The first approach develops a recursive algorithm whose search is driven by CEGAR (rather than by DPLL). The second approach employs CEGAR as an additional learning technique in an existing DPLL-based QBF solver. Experimental evaluation of the implemented prototypes shows that the CEGAR-driven solver outperforms existing solvers on a number of families in the QBF-LIB and that the DPLL solver benefits from the additional type of learning. Thus this article opens two promising avenues in QBF: CEGAR-driven solvers as an alternative to existing approaches and a novel type of learning in DPLL.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2026

Towards Rigorous Explainability by Feature Attribution

For around a decade, non-symbolic methods have been the option of choice when explaining complex machine learning (ML) models. Unfortunately, such methods lack rigor and can mislead human decision-makers. In high-stakes uses of ML, the lack of rigor is especially problematic. One prime example of provable lack of rigor is the adoption of Shapley values in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), with the tool SHAP being a ubiquitous example. This paper overviews the ongoing efforts towards using rigorous symbolic methods of XAI as an alternative to non-rigorous non-symbolic approaches, concretely for assigning relative feature importance.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Rigorous Explanations for Tree Ensembles

Tree ensembles (TEs) find a multitude of practical applications. They represent one of the most general and accurate classes of machine learning methods. While they are typically quite concise in representation, their operation remains inscrutable to human decision makers. One solution to build trust in the operation of TEs is to automatically identify explanations for the predictions made. Evidently, we can only achieve trust using explanations, if those explanations are rigorous, that is truly reflect properties of the underlying predictor they explain This paper investigates the computation of rigorously-defined, logically-sound explanations for the concrete case of two well-known examples of tree ensembles, namely random forests and boosted trees.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Uncovering Bugs in Formal Explainers: A Case Study with PyXAI

Formal explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) offers unique theoretical guarantees of rigor when compared to other non-formal methods of explainability. However, little attention has been given to the validation of practical implementations of formal explainers. This paper develops a novel methodology for validating formal explainers and reports on the assessment of the publicly available formal explainer PyXAI. The paper documents the existence of incorrect explanations computed by PyXAI on most of the datasets analyzed in the experiments, thereby confirming the importance of the proposed novel methodology for the validation of formal explainers.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Efficient & Correct Predictive Equivalence for Decision Trees

The Rashomon set of decision trees (DTs) finds importance uses. Recent work showed that DTs computing the same classification function, i.e. predictive equivalent DTs, can represent a significant fraction of the Rashomon set. Such redundancy is undesirable. For example, feature importance based on the Rashomon set becomes inaccurate due the existence of predictive equivalent DTs, i.e. DTs with the same prediction for every possible input. In recent work, McTavish et al. proposed solutions for several computational problems related with DTs, including that of deciding predictive equivalent DTs. The approach of McTavish et al. consists of applying the well-known method of Quine-McCluskey (QM) for obtaining minimum-size DNF (disjunctive normal form) representations of DTs, which are then used for comparing DTs for predictive equivalence. Furthermore, the minimum-size DNF representation was also applied to computing explanations for the predictions made by DTs, and to finding predictions in the presence of missing data. However, the problem of formula minimization is hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, and the QM method may exhibit worst-case exponential running time and space. This paper first demonstrates that there exist decision trees that trigger the worst-case exponential running time and space of the QM method. Second, the paper shows that the QM method may incorrectly decide predictive equivalence, if two key constraints are not respected, and one may be difficult to formally guarantee. Third, the paper shows that any of the problems to which the smallest DNF representation has been applied to can be solved in polynomial time, in the size of the DT. The experiments confirm that, for DTs for which the worst-case of the QM method is triggered, the algorithms proposed in this paper are orders of magnitude faster than the ones proposed by McTavish et al.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Rigorous Feature Importance Scores based on Shapley Value and Banzhaf Index

Feature attribution methods based on game theory are ubiquitous in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Recent works proposed rigorous feature attribution using logic-based explanations, specifically targeting high-stakes uses of machine learning (ML) models. Typically, such works exploit weak abductive explanation (WAXp) as the characteristic function to assign importance to features. However, one possible downside is that the contribution of non-WAXp sets is neglected. In fact, non-WAXp sets can also convey important information, because of the relationship between formal explanations (XPs) and adversarial examples (AExs). Accordingly, this paper leverages Shapley value and Banzhaf index to devise two novel feature importance scores. We take into account non-WAXp sets when computing feature contribution, and the novel scores quantify how effective each feature is at excluding AExs. Furthermore, the paper identifies properties and studies the computational complexity of the proposed scores.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

On Trustworthy Rule-Based Models and Explanations

A task of interest in machine learning (ML) is that of ascribing explanations to the predictions made by ML models. Furthermore, in domains deemed high risk, the rigor of explanations is paramount. Indeed, incorrect explanations can and will mislead human decision makers. As a result, and even if interpretability is acknowledged as an elusive concept, so-called interpretable models are employed ubiquitously in high-risk uses of ML and data mining (DM). This is the case for rule-based ML models, which encompass decision trees, diagrams, sets and lists. This paper relates explanations with well-known undesired facets of rule-based ML models, which include negative overlap and several forms of redundancy. The paper develops algorithms for the analysis of these undesired facets of rule-based systems, and concludes that well-known and widely used tools for learning rule-based ML models will induce rule sets that exhibit one or more negative facets.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Most General Explanations of Tree Ensembles (Extended Version)

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is critical for attaining trust in the operation of AI systems. A key question of an AI system is ``why was this decision made this way''. Formal approaches to XAI use a formal model of the AI system to identify abductive explanations. While abductive explanations may be applicable to a large number of inputs sharing the same concrete values, more general explanations may be preferred for numeric inputs. So-called inflated abductive explanations give intervals for each feature ensuring that any input whose values fall withing these intervals is still guaranteed to make the same prediction. Inflated explanations cover a larger portion of the input space, and hence are deemed more general explanations. But there can be many (inflated) abductive explanations for an instance. Which is the best? In this paper, we show how to find a most general abductive explanation for an AI decision. This explanation covers as much of the input space as possible, while still being a correct formal explanation of the model's behaviour. Given that we only want to give a human one explanation for a decision, the most general explanation gives us the explanation with the broadest applicability, and hence the one most likely to seem sensible. (The paper has been accepted at IJCAI2025 conference.)

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

The Explanation Game -- Rekindled (Extended Version)

Recent work demonstrated the existence of critical flaws in the current use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI), i.e. the so-called SHAP scores. These flaws are significant in that the scores provided to a human decision-maker can be misleading. Although these negative results might appear to indicate that Shapley values ought not be used in XAI, this paper argues otherwise. Concretely, this paper proposes a novel definition of SHAP scores that overcomes existing flaws. Furthermore, the paper outlines a practically efficient solution for the rigorous estimation of the novel SHAP scores. Preliminary experimental results confirm our claims, and further underscore the flaws of the current SHAP scores.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation

The uses of machine learning (ML) have snowballed in recent years. In many cases, ML models are highly complex, and their operation is beyond the understanding of human decision-makers. Nevertheless, some uses of ML models involve high-stakes and safety-critical applications. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding the operation of such complex ML models, thus eliciting trust in their operation. Unfortunately, the majority of past XAI work is based on informal approaches, that offer no guarantees of rigor. Unsurprisingly, there exists comprehensive experimental and theoretical evidence confirming that informal methods of XAI can provide human-decision makers with erroneous information. Logic-based XAI represents a rigorous approach to explainability; it is model-based and offers the strongest guarantees of rigor of computed explanations. However, a well-known drawback of logic-based XAI is the complexity of logic reasoning, especially for highly complex ML models. Recent work proposed distance-restricted explanations, i.e. explanations that are rigorous provided the distance to a given input is small enough. Distance-restricted explainability is tightly related with adversarial robustness, and it has been shown to scale for moderately complex ML models, but the number of inputs still represents a key limiting factor. This paper investigates novel algorithms for scaling up the performance of logic-based explainers when computing and enumerating ML model explanations with a large number of inputs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demand

Recent work revealed a tight connection between adversarial robustness and restricted forms of symbolic explanations, namely distance-based (formal) explanations. This connection is significant because it represents a first step towards making the computation of symbolic explanations as efficient as deciding the existence of adversarial examples, especially for highly complex machine learning (ML) models. However, a major performance bottleneck remains, because of the very large number of features that ML models may possess, in particular for deep neural networks. This paper proposes novel algorithms to compute the so-called contrastive explanations for ML models with a large number of features, by leveraging on adversarial robustness. Furthermore, the paper also proposes novel algorithms for listing explanations and finding smallest contrastive explanations. The experimental results demonstrate the performance gains achieved by the novel algorithms proposed in this paper.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Towards trustable SHAP scores

SHAP scores represent the proposed use of the well-known Shapley values in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Recent work has shown that the exact computation of SHAP scores can produce unsatisfactory results. Concretely, for some ML models, SHAP scores will mislead with respect to relative feature influence. To address these limitations, recently proposed alternatives exploit different axiomatic aggregations, all of which are defined in terms of abductive explanations. However, the proposed axiomatic aggregations are not Shapley values. This paper investigates how SHAP scores can be modified so as to extend axiomatic aggregations to the case of Shapley values in XAI. More importantly, the proposed new definition of SHAP scores avoids all the known cases where unsatisfactory results have been identified. The paper also characterizes the complexity of computing the novel definition of SHAP scores, highlighting families of classifiers for which computing these scores is tractable. Furthermore, the paper proposes modifications to the existing implementations of SHAP scores. These modifications eliminate some of the known limitations of SHAP scores, and have negligible impact in terms of performance.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

SHAP scores fail pervasively even when Lipschitz succeeds

The ubiquitous use of Shapley values in eXplainable AI (XAI) has been triggered by the tool SHAP, and as a result are commonly referred to as SHAP scores. Recent work devised examples of machine learning (ML) classifiers for which the computed SHAP scores are thoroughly unsatisfactory, by allowing human decision-makers to be misled. Nevertheless, such examples could be perceived as somewhat artificial, since the selected classes must be interpreted as numeric. Furthermore, it was unclear how general were the issues identified with SHAP scores. This paper answers these criticisms. First, the paper shows that for Boolean classifiers there are arbitrarily many examples for which the SHAP scores must be deemed unsatisfactory. Second, the paper shows that the issues with SHAP scores are also observed in the case of regression models. In addition, the paper studies the class of regression models that respect Lipschitz continuity, a measure of a function's rate of change that finds important recent uses in ML, including model robustness. Concretely, the paper shows that the issues with SHAP scores occur even for regression models that respect Lipschitz continuity. Finally, the paper shows that the same issues are guaranteed to exist for arbitrarily differentiable regression models.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

From Robustness to Explainability and Back Again

Formal explainability guarantees the rigor of computed explanations, and so it is paramount in domains where rigor is critical, including those deemed high-risk. Unfortunately, since its inception formal explainability has been hampered by poor scalability. At present, this limitation still holds true for some families of classifiers, the most significant being deep neural networks. This paper addresses the poor scalability of formal explainability and proposes novel efficient algorithms for computing formal explanations. The novel algorithm computes explanations by answering instead a number of robustness queries, and such that the number of such queries is at most linear on the number of features. Consequently, the proposed algorithm establishes a direct relationship between the practical complexity of formal explainability and that of robustness. To achieve the proposed goals, the paper generalizes the definition of formal explanations, thereby allowing the use of robustness tools that are based on different distance norms, and also by reasoning in terms of some target degree of robustness. Preliminary experiments validate the practical efficiency of the proposed approach.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

The Sets of Power

Measures of voting power have been the subject of extensive research since the mid 1940s. More recently, similar measures of relative importance have been studied in other domains that include inconsistent knowledge bases, intensity of attacks in argumentation, different problems in the analysis of database management, and explainability. This paper demonstrates that all these examples are instantiations of computing measures of importance for a rather more general problem domain. The paper then shows that the best-known measures of importance can be computed for any reference set whenever one is given a monotonically increasing predicate that partitions the subsets of that reference set. As a consequence, the paper also proves that measures of importance can be devised in several domains, for some of which such measures have not yet been studied nor proposed. Furthermore, the paper highlights several research directions related with computing measures of importance.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future

In recent years, the impact of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in society has been absolutely remarkable. This impact is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. However,the adoption of AI/ML is also a cause of grave concern. The operation of the most advances AI/ML models is often beyond the grasp of human decision makers. As a result, decisions that impact humans may not be understood and may lack rigorous validation. Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with providing human decision-makers with understandable explanations for the predictions made by ML models. As a result, XAI is a cornerstone of trustworthy AI. Despite its strategic importance, most work on XAI lacks rigor, and so its use in high-risk or safety-critical domains serves to foster distrust instead of contributing to build much-needed trust. Logic-based XAI has recently emerged as a rigorous alternative to those other non-rigorous methods of XAI. This paper provides a technical survey of logic-based XAI, its origins, the current topics of research, and emerging future topics of research. The paper also highlights the many myths that pervade non-rigorous approaches for XAI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores

A central goal of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to assign relative importance to the features of a Machine Learning (ML) model given some prediction. The importance of this task of explainability by feature attribution is illustrated by the ubiquitous recent use of tools such as SHAP and LIME. Unfortunately, the exact computation of feature attributions, using the game-theoretical foundation underlying SHAP and LIME, can yield manifestly unsatisfactory results, that tantamount to reporting misleading relative feature importance. Recent work targeted rigorous feature attribution, by studying axiomatic aggregations of features based on logic-based definitions of explanations by feature selection. This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power, and that those recently proposed axiomatic aggregations represent a few instantiations of the range of power indices studied in the past. Furthermore, it remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs), i.e. the use of power indices in XAI, and which of these indices would be the best suited for the purposes of XAI by feature attribution, namely in terms of not producing results that could be deemed as unsatisfactory. This paper proposes novel desirable properties that FISs should exhibit. In addition, the paper also proposes novel FISs exhibiting the proposed properties. Finally, the paper conducts a rigorous analysis of the best-known power indices in terms of the proposed properties.

cs.AI↗