Artificial intelligence (AI) systems in high-stakes domains raise concerns about proxy discrimination, unfairness, and explainability. Existing audits often fail to reveal why unfairness arises, particularly when rooted in structural bias. We propose a novel framework using formal abductive explanations to explain proxy discrimination in individual AI decisions. Leveraging background knowledge, our method identifies which features act as unjustified proxies for protected attributes, revealing hidden structural biases. Central to our approach is the concept of aptitude, a task-relevant property independent of group membership, with a mapping function aligning individuals of equivalent aptitude across groups to assess fairness substantively. As a proof of concept, we showcase the framework with examples taken from the German credit dataset, demonstrating its applicability in real-world cases.

Case-based reasoning networks are machine-learning models that make predictions based on similarity between the input and prototypical parts of training samples, called prototypes. Such models are able to explain each decision by pointing to the prototypes that contributed the most to the final outcome. As the explanation is a core part of the prediction, they are often qualified as ``interpretable by design". While promising, we show that such explanations are sometimes misleading, which hampers their usefulness in safety-critical contexts. In particular, several instances may lead to different predictions and yet have the same explanation. Drawing inspiration from the field of formal eXplainable AI (FXAI), we propose Abductive Latent Explanations (ALEs), a formalism to express sufficient conditions on the intermediate (latent) representation of the instance that imply the prediction. Our approach combines the inherent interpretability of case-based reasoning models and the guarantees provided by formal XAI. We propose a solver-free and scalable algorithm for generating ALEs based on three distinct paradigms, compare them, and present the feasibility of our approach on diverse datasets for both standard and fine-grained image classification. The associated code can be found at https://github.com/julsoria/ale

Privacy leakage in AI-based decision processes poses significant risks, particularly when sensitive information can be inferred. We propose a formal framework to audit privacy leakage using abductive explanations, which identifies minimal sufficient evidence justifying model decisions and determines whether sensitive information disclosed. Our framework formalizes both individual and system-level leakage, introducing the notion of Potentially Applicable Explanations (P AE) to identify individuals whose outcomes can shield those with sensitive features. This approach provides rigorous privacy guarantees while producing human-understandable explanations, a key requirement for auditing tools. Experimental evaluation on the German Credit Dataset illustrates how the importance of sensitive literal in the model decision process affects privacy leakage. Despite computational challenges and simplifying assumptions, our results demonstrate that abductive reasoning enables interpretable privacy auditing, offering a practical pathway to reconcile transparency, model interpretability, and privacy preserving in AI decision-making.

This paper presents a comprehensive theoretical investigation into the parameterized complexity of explanation problems in various machine learning (ML) models. Contrary to the prevalent black-box perception, our study focuses on models with transparent internal mechanisms. We address two principal types of explanation problems: abductive and contrastive, both in their local and global variants. Our analysis encompasses diverse ML models, including Decision Trees, Decision Sets, Decision Lists, Boolean Circuits, and ensembles thereof, each offering unique explanatory challenges. This research fills a significant gap in explainable AI (XAI) by providing a foundational understanding of the complexities of generating explanations for these models. This work provides insights vital for further research in the domain of XAI, contributing to the broader discourse on the necessity of transparency and accountability in AI systems.

We present a new approach to classification that combines data and knowledge. In this approach, data mining is used to derive association rules (possibly with negations) from data. Those rules are leveraged to increase the predictive performance of tree-based models (decision trees and random forests) used for a classification task. They are also used to improve the corresponding explanation task through the generation of abductive explanations that are more general than those derivable without taking such rules into account. Experiments show that for the two tree-based models under consideration, benefits can be offered by the approach in terms of predictive performance and in terms of explanation sizes.

We present a new approach for distilling boosted trees into decision trees, in the objective of generating an ML model offering an acceptable compromise in terms of predictive performance and interpretability. We explain how the correction approach called rectification can be used to implement such a distillation process. We show empirically that this approach provides interesting results, in comparison with an approach to distillation achieved by retraining the model.

Unsupervised classification is a fundamental machine learning problem. Real-world data often contain imperfections, characterized by uncertainty and imprecision, which are not well handled by traditional methods. Evidential clustering, based on Dempster-Shafer theory, addresses these challenges. This paper explores the underexplored problem of explaining evidential clustering results, which is crucial for high-stakes domains such as healthcare. Our analysis shows that, in the general case, representativity is a necessary and sufficient condition for decision trees to serve as abductive explainers. Building on the concept of representativity, we generalize this idea to accommodate partial labeling through utility functions. These functions enable the representation of "tolerable" mistakes, leading to the definition of evidential mistakeness as explanation cost and the construction of explainers tailored to evidential classifiers. Finally, we propose the Iterative Evidential Mistake Minimization (IEMM) algorithm, which provides interpretable and cautious decision tree explanations for evidential clustering functions. We validate the proposed algorithm on synthetic and real-world data. Taking into account the decision-maker's preferences, we were able to provide an explanation that was satisfactory up to 93% of the time.

The capability to store data about business processes execution in so-called Event Logs has brought to the diffusion of tools for the analysis of process executions and for the assessment of the goodness of a process model. Nonetheless, these tools are often very rigid in dealing with with Event Logs that include incomplete information about the process execution. Thus, while the ability of handling incomplete event data is one of the challenges mentioned in the process mining manifesto, the evaluation of compliance of an execution trace still requires an end-to-end complete trace to be performed. This paper exploits the power of abduction to provide a flexible, yet computationally effective, framework to deal with different forms of incompleteness in an Event Log. Moreover it proposes a refinement of the classical notion of compliance into strong and conditional compliance to take into account incomplete logs. Finally, performances evaluation in an experimental setting shows the feasibility of the presented approach.

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.)

Interpretable Machine Learning faces a recurring challenge of explaining the predictions made by opaque classifiers such as ensemble models, kernel methods, or neural networks in terms that are understandable to humans. When the model is viewed as a black box, the objective is to identify a small set of features that jointly determine the black box response with minimal error. However, finding such model-agnostic explanations is computationally demanding, as the problem is intractable even for binary classifiers. In this paper, the task is framed as a Constraint Optimization Problem, where the constraint solver seeks an explanation of minimum error and bounded size for an input data instance and a set of samples generated by the black box. From a theoretical perspective, this constraint programming approach offers PAC-style guarantees for the output explanation. We evaluate the approach empirically on various datasets and show that it statistically outperforms the state-of-the-art heuristic Anchors method.