Machine learning models support decision-making, yet the reasons behind their predictions are opaque. Clear and reliable explanations help users make informed decisions and avoid blindly trusting model outputs. However, many existing explanation methods fail to guarantee correctness. Logic-based approaches ensure correctness but often offer overly constrained explanations, limiting coverage. Recent work addresses this by incrementally expanding explanations while maintaining correctness. This process is performed separately for each feature, adjusting both its upper and lower bounds. However, this approach faces a trade-off: smaller increments incur high computational costs, whereas larger ones may lead to explanations covering fewer instances. To overcome this, we propose two novel methods. Onestep builds upon this prior work, generating explanations in a single step for each feature and each bound, eliminating the overhead of an iterative process. Twostep takes a gradual approach, improving coverage. Experimental results show that Twostep significantly increases explanation coverage (by up to 72.60% on average across datasets) compared to Onestep and, consequently, to prior work.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example of how the range of a feature fi is computed with an incremental approach.
Figure 2: Example of how the range of a feature fi is computed with Onestep.
Figure 3: Illustration of how a partial range for fi is computed with Twostep.
Dataset
Acronym
Number of Features
Instances
Iris
IRIS
4
150
Blood Transfusion
BLDT
4
748
Banknote Authentication
BANK
4
1372
User Knowledge Modeling
UKMO
5
403
Vertebral Column
VRTC
6
310
Pima
PIMA
8
768
Table 1: Datasets details.
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
0.017 ± 0.003
0.022 ± 0.004
29.41
0.022 ± 0.004
29.41
0.022 ± 0.004
29.41
BLDT
0.014 ± 0.004
0.015 ± 0.004
7.14
0.015 ± 0.003
7.14
0.015 ± 0.004
7.14
BANK
0.017 ± 0.004
0.023 ± 0.004
35.29
0.023 ± 0.004
35.29
0.023 ± 0.004
35.29
UKMO
0.018 ± 0.005
0.023 ± 0.006
27.78
0.023 ± 0.006
27.78
0.023 ± 0.006
27.78
Table 2: Average execution time results for SVM. #M demotes the mean execution time along with the standard deviation. %M represents the percentage increase in average execution time of Twostep compared to Onestep.
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
0.16 ± 0.02
0.21 ± 0.04
28.83
0.20 ± 0.03
21.30
0.21 ± 0.04
26.51
BLDT
0.14 ± 0.01
0.16 ± 0.02
14.71
0.16 ± 0.02
13.87
0.16 ± 0.02
14.49
BANK
0.16 ± 0.02
0.20 ± 0.03
24.84
0.20 ± 0.03
26.58
0.20 ± 0.03
25.48
UKMO
0.18 ± 0.02
0.23 ± 0.04
28.25
0.23 ± 0.04
32.39
0.24 ± 0.05
33.33
Table 3: Average execution time results for MLP. #M demotes the mean execution time along with the standard deviation. %M represents the percentage increase in average execution time of Twostep compared to Onestep.
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
30.41 ± 19.51
35.04 ± 15.35
15.23
35.56 ± 14.62
16.94
34.44 ± 15.87
13.25
BLDT
519.92 ± 94.91
520.85 ± 90.60
0.18
521.02 ± 89.80
0.21
520.89 ± 90.41
0.19
BANK
36.03 ± 36.37
49.60 ± 36.08
37.66
51.00 ± 36.77
41.55
46.57 ± 36.92
29.25
UKMO
38.29 ± 28.95
37.81 ± 27.69
-1.25
37.76 ± 27.57
-1.38
38.10 ± 28.12
-0.50
Table 4: Average coverage results for SVM. #M denotes the mean dataset coverage with standard deviation. %M represents the percentage improvement in mean dataset coverage of Twostep over Onestep.
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
19.57 ± 14.48
21.81 ± 12.21
11.45
22.76 ± 11.81
16.30
22.65 ± 12.95
15.74
BLDT
149.55 ± 113.63
157.78 ± 122.77
5.50
162.46 ± 127.68
8.63
157.19 ± 122.89
5.11
BANK
25.15 ± 29.50
33.34 ± 31.56
32.56
33.85 ± 32.21
34.59
31.05 ± 31.59
23.46
UKMO
12.85 ± 10.93
13.91 ± 10.70
8.25
14.46 ± 10.99
12.53
14.14 ± 10.88
10.04
Table 5: Average coverage results for MLP. #M denotes the mean dataset coverage with standard deviation. %M represents the percentage improvement in mean dataset coverage of Twostep over Onestep.
Figure 4: Distribution of dataset coverage improvement (%) achieved by Twostep over Onestep for SVM, with Twostep parameter fixed at p=0.25 . Red bars represent cases with worsened coverage, gray bars represent cases with same coverage, and the green bars represent cases with improved coverage. The best improvement and the worst deterioration are highlighted.
Figure 10
Figure 6: Distribution of dataset coverage improvement (%) achieved by Twostep over Onestep for MLP, with Twostep parameter fixed at p=0.25 . Red bars represent cases with worsened coverage, gray bars represent cases with same coverage, and green bars represent cases with improved coverage. The best improvement and the worst deterioration are highlighted.
Figure 12
Figure 8: Histogram of coverage improvement (%) achieved by Twostep over Onestep for synthetic data, with the SVM model and Twostep parameter fixed at p=0.25 . Red bars represent cases with worsened coverage, gray bars represent cases with same coverage, and green bars represent cases with improved coverage. The best improvement and the worst deterioration are highlighted.
Figure 14
Figure 10: Histogram of coverage improvement (%) achieved by Twostep over Onestep for synthetic data, with the MLP model and Twostep parameter fixed at p=0.25 . Red bars represent cases with worsened coverage, gray bars represent cases with same coverage, and green bars represent cases with improved coverage. The best improvement and the worst deterioration are highlighted.
Figure 16
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
2.55 ± 0.43
2.52 ± 0.44
-1.18
2.52 ± 0.45
-1.18
2.53 ± 0.44
-0.78
BLDT
3.29 ± 0.11
3.29 ± 0.11
0.00
3.29 ± 0.11
0.00
3.29 ± 0.11
0.00
BANK
2.47 ± 0.13
2.48 ± 0.13
0.40
2.48 ± 0.13
0.40
2.48 ± 0.13
0.40
UKMO
3.55 ± 0.63
3.53 ± 0.62
-0.56
3.53 ± 0.62
-0.56
3.54 ± 0.62
-0.28
Table 6: Explanation range width results for SVM. #M represents the mean range width with standard deviation. %M is the percentage improvement in mean range width of Twostep over Onestep.
Dataset
Onestep
Twostep
T-Step 0.25
T-Step 0.50
T-Step 0.75
#M
#M
%M
#M
%M
#M
%M
IRIS
2.09 ± 0.69
2.12 ± 0.65
1.44
2.14 ± 0.63
2.39
2.13 ± 0.65
1.91
BLDT
2.71 ± 0.27
2.72 ± 0.27
0.37
2.73 ± 0.27
0.74
2.72 ± 0.27
0.37
BANK
2.31 ± 0.29
2.33 ± 0.29
0.87
2.33 ± 0.29
0.87
2.32 ± 0.29
0.43
UKMO
3.27 ± 0.65
3.23 ± 0.64
-1.22
3.23 ± 0.63
-1.22
3.25 ± 0.62
-0.61
Table 7: Explanation range width results for MLP. #M represents the mean explanation range width, along with standard deviation. %M is the percentage improvement in mean range widht of Twostep over Onestep.
Formal explainability provides mathematically grounded justifications for individual predictions. However, abductive explanations often exceed human cognitive limits by involving too many features, while probabilistic relaxations have remained largely limited to categorical classification. We present a unified framework for probabilistic explainability based on sparse, anchored linear models, applicable to both binary classification and continuous regression. By mapping instances to the Boolean hypercube, our linear explanations strictly generalize subset-based approaches: they capture both the magnitude and direction of feature contributions while enforcing a prescribed sparsity budget k. We show that minimizing the relevance error for such explanations is \ClassNPPP-hard when the underlying model is a neural network, and we relate this intractable objective to a tractable surrogate---the fidelity error. For a parameterized family of local distributions, the relevance error of any k-sparse explanation is bounded by its fidelity error up to a multiplicative factor that remains small locally. We address the resulting empirical problem using two complementary approaches: a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) formulation that yields provably optimal empirical solutions while maintaining polynomial sample complexity, and a polynomial-time Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT) algorithm with provable approximation guarantees. Empirical evaluations show that, unlike state-of-the-art baselines such as LIME and MAPLE, our explanations satisfy both the anchoring and sparsity constraints by construction, while consistently achieving lower relevance error.
Frederic Koriche, Jean-Marie Lagniez, Chi Tran
Computer science Research Institute of Lens (CRIL), UMR CNRS 8188, University of Artois, Rue Jean Souvraz SP 18, Lens, F-62307, France
Machine learning is increasingly used in critical domains, where both predictions and their associated confidence levels influence important decisions. To enhance transparency in such scenarios, it is important to understand why a model is confident or uncertain about its predictions. Recent logic-based approaches provide abductive explanations, minimal subsets of features sufficient to preserve the predicted class, with correctness guarantees. However, these methods focus solely on classification behavior and may produce explanations that cover instances with low predictive confidence. In this work, we introduce the concept of Minimum Confidence Threshold (MCT), which quantifies the weakest confidence guarantee provided by an abductive explanation. Building upon this concept, we propose confidence-aware abductive explanations, which preserve not only the predicted class but also a user-specified confidence guarantee. We formulate MCT computation as an optimization problem and introduce an algorithm for generating minimal explanations that satisfy a desired confidence threshold. We evaluate the proposed framework on boosted trees for binary classification, although the approach is applicable to other machine learning models that provide confidence scores. Experimental results show that traditional abductive explanations often provide substantially weaker confidence guarantees than the confidence associated with the explained instance itself. In contrast, confidence-aware explanations consistently improve the minimum confidence guaranteed by an explanation while requiring only a modest increase in explanation length. These properties make the proposed approach particularly suitable for applications where both predictive correctness and confidence are essential for trustworthy decision making.
Vinícius Peixoto Chagas, Carlos Henrique Leitão Cavalcante, Thiago Alves Rocha
Logic-based methods for explaining neural network decisions offer formal guarantees of correctness and non-redundancy, but they often suffer from high computational costs, especially for large networks. In this work, we improve the efficiency of such methods by combining bound propagation with constraint simplification. These simplifications, derived from the propagation, tighten neuron bounds and eliminate unnecessary binary variables, making the explanation process more efficient. Our experiments suggest that combining these techniques reduces explanation time by up to 89.26%, particularly for larger neural networks.
Ronaldo Gomes, Jairo Ribeiro, Luiz Queiroz +1
Department of Computer Science, Instituto Federal do Ceará (IFCE), Maracanaú, Brazil