Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the challenge of explaining neural network predictions by formalizing explanations as Halpern-Pearl (HP) actual causes, specifically in the context of structured causal inputs. By employing Boolean Structural Causal Models (SCMs) and utilizing bound propagation and branch-and-bound techniques, the authors achieve significant improvements in scalability and accuracy over existing methods, particularly in handling input dependencies. Their experiments demonstrate that their approach can compute all minimal actual causes efficiently, even in complex scenarios with vast search spaces, revealing that traditional methods often inflate the number of reported causes due to neglecting these dependencies.
Ignoring structured input dependencies can lead to a staggering 14.9% of spurious causes in neural network explanations.
Explaining the predictions of neural networks is a central challenge in trustworthy AI. Existing explanation methods, such as those based on feature attribution or minimal sufficient sets, typically treat input features as independent, which can yield misleading explanations when inputs exhibit structured dependencies. We address this by formalizing explanations as Halpern-Pearl (HP) actual causes, modeling input dependencies using Boolean Structural Causal Models (SCMs). We compute HP causes by applying bound propagation and branch-and-bound techniques, while providing formal guarantees of completeness and minimality. Our experiments show that we substantially outperform brute-force and ILP baselines in scalability, and outperform heuristic search as graph size grows, computing all minimal actual causes on instances with search spaces of up to $2.3\times10^{13}$ candidate (cause, contingency) pairs, on SCMs with up to 28 nodes, within a 180s per-instance budget. In a case study, we further show that ignoring input dependencies inflates the number of reported causes, 14.9% of which are spurious under our SCM.
