The notion of cause, as formalized by Halpern and Pearl, has been recently applied to relational databases, to characterize and compute causal explanations for query answers. In this work we consider the alternative notion of sufficient explanation. We investigate its connections with database repairs as used for dealing with inconsistent databases, and with causality-based necessary explanations. We also obtain some computational results.

We describe recent research on the use of actual causality in the definition of responsibility scores as explanations for query answers in databases, and for outcomes from classification models in machine learning. In the case of databases, useful connections with database repairs are illustrated and exploited. Repairs are also used to give a quantitative measure of the consistency of a database. For classification models, the responsibility score is properly extended and illustrated. The efficient computation of Shap-score is also analyzed and discussed. The emphasis is placed on work done by the author and collaborators.

We describe some recent approaches to score-based explanations for query answers in databases. The focus is on work done by the author and collaborators. Special emphasis is placed on the use of counterfactual reasoning for score specification and computation. Several examples that illustrate the flexibility of these methods are shown.

We briefly describe -- mainly through very simple examples -- different kinds of answer-set programs with annotations that have been proposed for specifying: database repairs and consistent query answering; secrecy view and query evaluation with them; counterfactual interventions for causality in databases; and counterfactual-based explanations in machine learning.

There are some recent approaches and results about the use of answer-set programming for specifying counterfactual interventions on entities under classification, and reasoning about them. These approaches are flexible and modular in that they allow the seamless addition of domain knowledge. Reasoning is enabled by query answering from the answer-set program. The programs can be used to specify and compute responsibility-based numerical scores as attributive explanations for classification results.

Consistent answers to a query from a possibly inconsistent database are answers that are simultaneously retrieved from every possible repair of the database. Repairs are consistent instances that minimally differ from the original inconsistent instance. It has been shown before that database repairs can be specified as the stable models of a disjunctive logic program. In this paper we show how to use the repair programs to transform the problem of consistent query answering into a problem of reasoning w.r.t. a theory written in second-order predicate logic. It also investigated how a first-order theory can be obtained instead by applying second-order quantifier elimination techniques.

We describe some recent approaches to score-based explanations for query answers in databases and outcomes from classification models in machine learning. The focus is on work done by the author and collaborators. Special emphasis is placed on declarative approaches based on answer-set programming to the use of counterfactual reasoning for score specification and computation. Several examples that illustrate the flexibility of these methods are shown.

In Machine Learning, the $\mathsf{SHAP}$-score is a version of the Shapley value that is used to explain the result of a learned model on a specific entity by assigning a score to every feature. While in general computing Shapley values is an intractable problem, we prove a strong positive result stating that the $\mathsf{SHAP}$-score can be computed in polynomial time over deterministic and decomposable Boolean circuits. Such circuits are studied in the field of Knowledge Compilation and generalize a wide range of Boolean circuits and binary decision diagrams classes, including binary decision trees and Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (OBDDs). We also establish the computational limits of the SHAP-score by observing that computing it over a class of Boolean models is always polynomially as hard as the model counting problem for that class. This implies that both determinism and decomposability are essential properties for the circuits that we consider. It also implies that computing $\mathsf{SHAP}$-scores is intractable as well over the class of propositional formulas in DNF. Based on this negative result, we look for the existence of fully-polynomial randomized approximation schemes (FPRAS) for computing $\mathsf{SHAP}$-scores over such class. In contrast to the model counting problem for DNF formulas, which admits an FPRAS, we prove that no such FPRAS exists for the computation of $\mathsf{SHAP}$-scores. Surprisingly, this negative result holds even for the class of monotone formulas in DNF. These techniques can be further extended to prove another strong negative result: Under widely believed complexity assumptions, there is no polynomial-time algorithm that checks, given a monotone DNF formula $\varphi$ and features $x,y$, whether the $\mathsf{SHAP}$-score of $x$ in $\varphi$ is smaller than the $\mathsf{SHAP}$-score of $y$ in $\varphi$.

We propose answer-set programs that specify and compute counterfactual interventions as a basis for causality-based explanations to the outcomes from classification models. They can be applied with black-box models, and also with models that can be specified as logic programs, such as rule-based classifiers. The main focus is on the specification and computation of maximum-responsibility counterfactual explanations, with responsibility becoming an explanation score for features of entities under classification. We also extend the programs to bring into the picture semantic or domain knowledge. We show how the approach could be extended by means of probabilistic methods, and how the underlying probability distributions could be modified through the use of constraints.

We describe some approaches to explanations for observed outcomes in data management and machine learning. They are based on the assignment of numerical scores to predefined and potentially relevant inputs. More specifically, we consider explanations for query answers in databases, and for results from classification models. The described approaches are mostly of a causal and counterfactual nature. We argue for the need to bring domain and semantic knowledge into score computations; and suggest some ways to do this.