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.

Decision trees are widely used for interpretable machine learning due to their clearly structured reasoning process. However, this structure belies a challenge we refer to as predictive equivalence: a given tree's decision boundary can be represented by many different decision trees. The presence of models with identical decision boundaries but different evaluation processes makes model selection challenging. The models will have different variable importance and behave differently in the presence of missing values, but most optimization procedures will arbitrarily choose one such model to return. We present a boolean logical representation of decision trees that does not exhibit predictive equivalence and is faithful to the underlying decision boundary. We apply our representation to several downstream machine learning tasks. Using our representation, we show that decision trees are surprisingly robust to test-time missingness of feature values; we address predictive equivalence's impact on quantifying variable importance; and we present an algorithm to optimize the cost of reaching predictions.

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.

State-of-the-art neurosymbolic learning systems use probabilistic reasoning to guide neural networks towards predictions that conform to logical constraints over symbols. Many such systems assume that the probabilities of the considered symbols are conditionally independent given the input to simplify learning and reasoning. We study and criticise this assumption, highlighting how it can hinder optimisation and prevent uncertainty quantification. We prove that loss functions bias conditionally independent neural networks to become overconfident in their predictions. As a result, they are unable to represent uncertainty over multiple valid options. Furthermore, we prove that these loss functions are difficult to optimise: they are non-convex, and their minima are usually highly disconnected. Our theoretical analysis gives the foundation for replacing the conditional independence assumption and designing more expressive neurosymbolic probabilistic models.

Two types of explanations have been receiving increased attention in the literature when analyzing the decisions made by classifiers. The first type explains why a decision was made and is known as a sufficient reason for the decision, also an abductive explanation or a PI-explanation. The second type explains why some other decision was not made and is known as a necessary reason for the decision, also a contrastive or counterfactual explanation. These explanations were defined for classifiers with binary, discrete and, in some cases, continuous features. We show that these explanations can be significantly improved in the presence of non-binary features, leading to a new class of explanations that relay more information about decisions and the underlying classifiers. Necessary and sufficient reasons were also shown to be the prime implicates and implicants of the complete reason for a decision, which can be obtained using a quantification operator. We show that our improved notions of necessary and sufficient reasons are also prime implicates and implicants but for an improved notion of complete reason obtained by a new quantification operator that we also define and study.

A central quest in explainable AI relates to understanding the decisions made by (learned) classifiers. There are three dimensions of this understanding that have been receiving significant attention in recent years. The first dimension relates to characterizing conditions on instances that are necessary and sufficient for decisions, therefore providing abstractions of instances that can be viewed as the "reasons behind decisions." The next dimension relates to characterizing minimal conditions that are sufficient for a decision, therefore identifying maximal aspects of the instance that are irrelevant to the decision. The last dimension relates to characterizing minimal conditions that are necessary for a decision, therefore identifying minimal perturbations to the instance that yield alternate decisions. We discuss in this tutorial a comprehensive, semantical and computational theory of explainability along these dimensions which is based on some recent developments in symbolic logic. The tutorial will also discuss how this theory is particularly applicable to non-symbolic classifiers such as those based on Bayesian networks, decision trees, random forests and some types of neural networks.

We consider the problem EnumIP of enumerating prime implicants of Boolean functions represented by decision decomposable negation normal form (dec-DNNF) circuits. We study EnumIP from dec-DNNF within the framework of enumeration complexity and prove that it is in OutputP, the class of output polynomial enumeration problems, and more precisely in IncP, the class of polynomial incremental time enumeration problems. We then focus on two closely related, but seemingly harder, enumeration problems where further restrictions are put on the prime implicants to be generated. In the first problem, one is only interested in prime implicants representing subset-minimal abductive explanations, a notion much investigated in AI for more than three decades. In the second problem, the target is prime implicants representing sufficient reasons, a recent yet important notion in the emerging field of eXplainable AI, since they aim to explain predictions achieved by machine learning classifiers. We provide evidence showing that enumerating specific prime implicants corresponding to subset-minimal abductive explanations or to sufficient reasons is not in OutputP.

The Internet is the most complex machine humankind has ever built, and how to defense it from intrusions is even more complex. With the ever increasing of new intrusions, intrusion detection task rely on Artificial Intelligence more and more. Interpretability and transparency of the machine learning model is the foundation of trust in AI-driven intrusion detection results. Current interpretation Artificial Intelligence technologies in intrusion detection are heuristic, which is neither accurate nor sufficient. This paper proposed a rigorous interpretable Artificial Intelligence driven intrusion detection approach, based on artificial immune system. Details of rigorous interpretation calculation process for a decision tree model is presented. Prime implicant explanation for benign traffic flow are given in detail as rule for negative selection of the cyber immune system. Experiments are carried out in real-life traffic.

Decision trees have long been recognized as models of choice in sensitive applications where interpretability is of paramount importance. In this paper, we examine the computational ability of Boolean decision trees in deriving, minimizing, and counting sufficient reasons and contrastive explanations. We prove that the set of all sufficient reasons of minimal size for an instance given a decision tree can be exponentially larger than the size of the input (the instance and the decision tree). Therefore, generating the full set of sufficient reasons can be out of reach. In addition, computing a single sufficient reason does not prove enough in general; indeed, two sufficient reasons for the same instance may differ on many features. To deal with this issue and generate synthetic views of the set of all sufficient reasons, we introduce the notions of relevant features and of necessary features that characterize the (possibly negated) features appearing in at least one or in every sufficient reason, and we show that they can be computed in polynomial time. We also introduce the notion of explanatory importance, that indicates how frequent each (possibly negated) feature is in the set of all sufficient reasons. We show how the explanatory importance of a feature and the number of sufficient reasons can be obtained via a model counting operation, which turns out to be practical in many cases. We also explain how to enumerate sufficient reasons of minimal size. We finally show that, unlike sufficient reasons, the set of all contrastive explanations for an instance given a decision tree can be derived, minimized and counted in polynomial time.

Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in Boolean function in explaining binary classifiers in the field of explainable AI (XAI). The standard approach of Boolean function is propositional logic. We present a modal language of a ceteris paribus nature which supports reasoning about binary classifiers and their properties. We study families of decision models for binary classifiers, axiomatize them and show completeness of our axiomatics. Moreover, we prove that the variant of our modal language with finite propositional atoms interpreted over these models is NP-complete. We leverage the language to formalize counterfactual conditional as well as a bunch of notions of explanation such as abductive, contrastive and counterfactual explanations, and biases. Finally, we present two extensions of our language: a dynamic extension by the notion of assignment enabling classifier change and an epistemic extension in which the classifier's uncertainty about the actual input can be represented.