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.

A classifier is considered interpretable if each of its decisions has an explanation which is small enough to be easily understood by a human user. A DNF formula can be seen as a binary classifier $κ$ over boolean domains. The size of an explanation of a positive decision taken by a DNF $κ$ is bounded by the size of the terms in $κ$, since we can explain a positive decision by giving a term of $κ$ that evaluates to true. Since both positive and negative decisions must be explained, we consider that interpretable DNFs are those $κ$ for which both $κ$ and $\overlineκ$ can be expressed as DNFs composed of terms of bounded size. In this paper, we study the family of $k$-DNFs whose complements can also be expressed as $k$-DNFs. We compare two such families, namely depth-$k$ decision trees and nested $k$-DNFs, a novel family of models. Experiments indicate that nested $k$-DNFs are an interesting alternative to decision trees in terms of interpretability and accuracy.

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.)

Despite the wide use of $k$-Nearest Neighbors as classification models, their explainability properties remain poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. While nearest neighbors classifiers offer interpretability from a "data perspective", in which the classification of an input vector $\bar{x}$ is explained by identifying the vectors $\bar{v}_1, \ldots, \bar{v}_k$ in the training set that determine the classification of $\bar{x}$, we argue that such explanations can be impractical in high-dimensional applications, where each vector has hundreds or thousands of features and it is not clear what their relative importance is. Hence, we focus on understanding nearest neighbor classifications through a "feature perspective", in which the goal is to identify how the values of the features in $\bar{x}$ affect its classification. Concretely, we study abductive explanations such as "minimum sufficient reasons", which correspond to sets of features in $\bar{x}$ that are enough to guarantee its classification, and "counterfactual explanations" based on the minimum distance feature changes one would have to perform in $\bar{x}$ to change its classification. We present a detailed landscape of positive and negative complexity results for counterfactual and abductive explanations, distinguishing between discrete and continuous feature spaces, and considering the impact of the choice of distance function involved. Finally, we show that despite some negative complexity results, Integer Quadratic Programming and SAT solving allow for computing explanations in practice.

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.

Despite the practical success of Artificial Intelligence (AI), current neural AI algorithms face two significant issues. First, the decisions made by neural architectures are often prone to bias and brittleness. Second, when a chain of reasoning is required, neural systems often perform poorly. Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence is a promising approach that tackles these (and other) weaknesses by combining the power of neural perception and symbolic reasoning. Meanwhile, the success of AI has made it critical to understand its behaviour, leading to the development of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). While neuro-symbolic AI systems have important advantages over purely neural AI, we still need to explain their actions, which are obscured by the interactions of the neural and symbolic components. To address the issue, this paper proposes a formal approach to explaining the decisions of neuro-symbolic systems. The approach hinges on the use of formal abductive explanations and on solving the neuro-symbolic explainability problem hierarchically. Namely, it first computes a formal explanation for the symbolic component of the system, which serves to identify a subset of the individual parts of neural information that needs to be explained. This is followed by explaining only those individual neural inputs, independently of each other, which facilitates succinctness of hierarchical formal explanations and helps to increase the overall performance of the approach. Experimental results for a few complex reasoning tasks demonstrate practical efficiency of the proposed approach, in comparison to purely neural systems, from the perspective of explanation size, explanation time, training time, model sizes, and the quality of explanations reported.

In the quest for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) one of the questions that frequently arises given a decision made by an AI system is, ``why was the decision made in this way?'' Formal approaches to explainability build a formal model of the AI system and use this to reason about the properties of the system. Given a set of feature values for an instance to be explained, and a resulting decision, a formal abductive explanation is a set of features, such that if they take the given value will always lead to the same decision. This explanation is useful, it shows that only some features were used in making the final decision. But it is narrow, it only shows that if the selected features take their given values the decision is unchanged. It's possible that some features may change values and still lead to the same decision. In this paper we formally define inflated explanations which is a set of features, and for each feature of set of values (always including the value of the instance being explained), such that the decision will remain unchanged. Inflated explanations are more informative than abductive explanations since e.g they allow us to see if the exact value of a feature is important, or it could be any nearby value. Overall they allow us to better understand the role of each feature in the decision. We show that we can compute inflated explanations for not that much greater cost than abductive explanations, and that we can extend duality results for abductive explanations also to inflated explanations.

Despite the progress observed with model-agnostic explainable AI (XAI), it is the case that model-agnostic XAI can produce incorrect explanations. One alternative are the so-called formal approaches to XAI, that include PI-explanations. Unfortunately, PI-explanations also exhibit important drawbacks, the most visible of which is arguably their size. The computation of relevant features serves to trade off probabilistic precision for the number of features in an explanation. However, even for very simple classifiers, the complexity of computing sets of relevant features is prohibitive. This paper investigates the computation of relevant sets for Naive Bayes Classifiers (NBCs), and shows that, in practice, these are easy to compute. Furthermore, the experiments confirm that succinct sets of relevant features can be obtained with NBCs.

Recent work has shown that not only decision trees (DTs) may not be interpretable but also proposed a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one PI-explanation of a DT. This paper shows that for a wide range of classifiers, globally referred to as decision graphs, and which include decision trees and binary decision diagrams, but also their multi-valued variants, there exist polynomial-time algorithms for computing one PI-explanation. In addition, the paper also proposes a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one contrastive explanation. These novel algorithms build on explanation graphs (XpG's). XpG's denote a graph representation that enables both theoretical and practically efficient computation of explanations for decision graphs. Furthermore, the paper pro- poses a practically efficient solution for the enumeration of explanations, and studies the complexity of deciding whether a given feature is included in some explanation. For the concrete case of decision trees, the paper shows that the set of all contrastive explanations can be enumerated in polynomial time. Finally, the experimental results validate the practical applicability of the algorithms proposed in the paper on a wide range of publicly available benchmarks.