Formal XAI (explainable AI) is a growing area that focuses on computing explanations with mathematical guarantees for the decisions made by ML models. Inside formal XAI, one of the most studied cases is that of explaining the choices taken by decision trees, as they are traditionally deemed as one of the most interpretable classes of models. Recent work has focused on studying the computation of sufficient reasons, a kind of explanation in which given a decision tree $T$ and an instance $x$, one explains the decision $T(x)$ by providing a subset $y$ of the features of $x$ such that for any other instance $z$ compatible with $y$, it holds that $T(z) = T(x)$, intuitively meaning that the features in $y$ are already enough to fully justify the classification of $x$ by $T$. It has been argued, however, that sufficient reasons constitute a restrictive notion of explanation. For such a reason, the community has started to study their probabilistic counterpart, in which one requires that the probability of $T(z) = T(x)$ must be at least some value $\delta \in (0, 1]$, where $z$ is a random instance that is compatible with $y$. Our paper settles the computational complexity of $\delta$-sufficient-reasons over decision trees, showing that both (1) finding $\delta$-sufficient-reasons that are minimal in size, and (2) finding $\delta$-sufficient-reasons that are minimal inclusion-wise, do not admit polynomial-time algorithms (unless P = NP). This is in stark contrast with the deterministic case ($\delta = 1$) where inclusion-wise minimal sufficient-reasons are easy to compute. By doing this, we answer two open problems originally raised by Izza et al., and extend the hardness of explanations for Boolean circuits presented by W{\a}ldchen et al. to the more restricted case of decision trees. On the positive side, we identify structural restrictions of decision trees that make the problem tractable, and show how SAT solvers might be able to tackle these problems in practical settings.

We define the complexity classes that are relevant for this article in terms of circuits.

W e only accept 1 out of 20 papers that do not cite any other paper from our own journal.

Formal XAI (explainable AI) is a growing area that focuses on computing explanations with mathematical guarantees for the decisions made by ML models.

Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) are commonly considered *interpretable* within the ML community, as their structure makes the relationship between inputs and outputs relatively understandable. Therefore, it may seem natural to hypothesize that obtaining meaningful explanations for GAMs could be performed efficiently and would not be computationally infeasible. In this work, we challenge this hypothesis by analyzing the *computational complexity* of generating different explanations for various forms of GAMs across multiple contexts. Our analysis reveals a surprisingly diverse landscape of both positive and negative complexity outcomes. Particularly, under standard complexity assumptions such as P!=NP, we establish several key findings: (1) in stark contrast to many other common ML models, the complexity of generating explanations for GAMs is heavily influenced by the structure of the input space; (2) the complexity of explaining GAMs varies significantly with the types of component models used - but interestingly, these differences only emerge under specific input domain settings; (3) significant complexity distinctions appear for obtaining explanations in regression tasks versus classification tasks in GAMs; and (4) expressing complex models like neural networks additively (e.g., as neural additive models) can make them easier to explain, though interestingly, this benefit appears only for certain explanation methods and input domains. Collectively, these results shed light on the feasibility of computing diverse explanations for GAMs, offering a rigorous theoretical picture of the conditions under which such computations are possible or provably hard.

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.

Formal XAI (explainable AI) is a growing area that focuses on computing explanations with mathematical guarantees for the decisions made by ML models.

We define the complexity classes that are relevant for this article in terms of circuits.

W e only accept 1 out of 20 papers that do not cite any other paper from our own journal.