Provably Explaining Neural Additive Models
Despite significant progress in post-hoc explanation methods for neural networks, many remain heuristic and lack provable guarantees. A key approach for obtaining explanations with provable guarantees is by identifying a cardinally-minimal subset of input features which by itself is provably sufficient to determine the prediction. However, for standard neural networks, this task is often computationally infeasible, as it demands a worst-case exponential number of verification queries in the number of input features, each of which is NP-hard. In this work, we show that for Neural Additive Models (NAMs), a recent and more interpretable neural network family, we can efficiently generate explanations with such guarantees. We present a new model-specific algorithm for NAMs that generates provably cardinally-minimal explanations using only a logarithmic number of verification queries in the number of input features, after a parallelized preprocessing step with logarithmic runtime in the required precision is applied to each small univariate NAM component. Our algorithm not only makes the task of obtaining cardinally-minimal explanations feasible, but even outperforms existing algorithms designed to find the relaxed variant of subset-minimal explanations - which may be larger and less informative but easier to compute - despite our algorithm solving a much more difficult task. Our experiments demonstrate that, compared to previous algorithms, our approach provides provably smaller explanations than existing works and substantially reduces the computation time. Moreover, we show that our generated provable explanations offer benefits that are unattainable by standard sampling-based techniques typically used to interpret NAMs.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Additive Models Explained: A Computational Complexity Approach
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 n…
Can local explanation techniques explain linear additive models?
Local model-agnostic additive explanation techniques decompose the predicted output of a black-box model into additive feature importance scores. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the produced local additi…
Additive modelsExplanation Fidelity EvaluationFeature ImportanceDP-InstaHide: Provably Defusing Poisoning and Backdoor Attacks with Differentially Private Data Augmentations
Data poisoning and backdoor attacks manipulate training data to induce security breaches in a victim model. These attacks can be provably deflected using differentially private (DP) training methods, although this comes …
Data PoisoningStochastic Linear Bandits Robust to Adversarial Attacks
We consider a stochastic linear bandit problem in which the rewards are not only subject to random noise, but also adversarial attacks subject to a suitable budget $C$ (i.e., an upper bound on the sum of corruption magni…
Explaining robust additive utility models by sequences of preference swaps
Multicriteria decision analysis aims at supporting a person facing a decision problem involving conflicting criteria. We consider an additive utility model which provides robust conclusions based on preferences elicited …