Evolving Explanations: Complexity-Adaptive Refinement of Faithful Explanations for Symbolic Regression
Organizations: Bioinformatics Research Group, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria · Computer Vision Lab, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria · Machine Intelligence and Biocomputing Laboratory, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Abstract
Natural-language explanations generated by large language models (LLMs) for machine learning models often seem fluent but are not necessarily faithful to the underlying model. We formalize this mismatch as a faithfulness gap and propose a complexity-adaptive refinement framework for symbolic regression that iteratively generates and validates explanations until numerical agreement with the target expression is achieved. The approach follows a two-stage pipeline: an explainer LLM produces textual descriptions at increasing levels of detail, while an independent validator LLM extracts a symbolic expression that is compared against the original model. This process is framed as a discrete search over explanation space, where complexity is minimized subject to a faithfulness constraint. We evaluate the method on real-world and synthetic datasets, with a total of 250 runs across varying model complexities. The explanation refinement loop achieves an overall pass rate of 84.0%, with most explanations converging at low complexity levels and only a small fraction requiring detailed descriptions. Our results demonstrate that faithful explanations can be obtained with minimal necessary complexity by explicitly closing the explanation loop through symbolic validation.
Figures & tables
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Overall trend and direction of effects | |
| Individual terms and directional influence | |
| Relative magnitude of effects | |
| Nonlinearities and interactions | |
| Full term-by-term mathematical interpretation |
| Dataset | Type | Complexity | Motivation / Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diabetes | Real-world | Low | Linear or near-linear structure; early convergence [ 6 ] |
| Friedman #1 | Synthetic | Medium | Standard nonlinear benchmark with interactions [ 7 ] |
| Friedman #2 | Synthetic | High | Strong nonlinearities; stress test for explanations [ 7 ] |
| Synthetic Polynomial | Synthetic | Medium | Known ground truth enables faithfulness verification [ 9 ] |
| Synthetic Trigonometric | Synthetic | High | Interaction-heavy trigonometric structure [ 9 ] |
| Dataset | SR | Nodes | Pass (%) | Median | Runtime (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diabetes (linear) | 0.40–0.45 | 9–13 | 80.0 | 1 | 311 |
| Friedman #1 | 0.70–0.79 | 12–17 | 62.0 | 2 | 529 |
| Friedman #2 | 0.997 | 3 | 100.0 | 1 | 143 |
| Synthetic polynomial | 0.990 | 7 | 88.0 | 2 | 332 |
| Synthetic trigonometric | 0.12–0.30 | 5–17 | 90.0 | 1 | 267 |
| Overall | – | – | 84.0 | 1 | 316 |
Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Explainable artificial intelligence develops ways to make AI decisions understandable, testable, and useful to people.
See all 331 papers