Unifying Formal Explanations: A Complexity-Theoretic Perspective
Shahaf Bassan, Xuanxiang Huang, Guy Katz

TL;DR
This paper presents a unified complexity-theoretic framework for understanding different types of explanations in machine learning, revealing key properties that influence computational difficulty and enabling efficient global explanations.
Contribution
It introduces a unified probabilistic framework for explanations, analyzing how properties like monotonicity and submodularity affect computational complexity and providing polynomial-time algorithms for global explanations.
Findings
Global explanations have properties like monotonicity and submodularity, enabling efficient computation.
Local explanations are NP-hard to compute, even in simplified cases.
The framework applies across various ML models, including neural networks and decision trees.
Abstract
Previous work has explored the computational complexity of deriving two fundamental types of explanations for ML model predictions: (1) *sufficient reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when fixed, determine a prediction, and (2) *contrastive reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when modified, alter a prediction. Prior studies have examined these explanations in different contexts, such as non-probabilistic versus probabilistic frameworks and local versus global settings. In this study, we introduce a unified framework for analyzing these explanations, demonstrating that they can all be characterized through the minimization of a unified probabilistic value function. We then prove that the complexity of these computations is influenced by three key properties of the value function: (1) *monotonicity*, (2) *submodularity*, and (3) *supermodularity* - which…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
The global versus local structural distinction appears to be new. Monotonicity holds without independence. Proofs are rigorous with counterexamples showing the necessity of assumptions.
Feature independence is required for approximation results. This limits practical applicability where features correlate.
- Clear research question and contribution - A lot of novel (formal) insights are generated, which I consider to be valuable for the XAI community.
- Readability and accessibility can be improved. Most importantly, it looks to me that sufficient reasons are the same as semi-factual explanation, and global contrastive reasoning seems to describe goup/multi-instance counterfactuals. Since semi and counterfactuals are popular and widely used terms in the XAI community, I suggest clearly relating them to the concepts introduced and discussed in this paper. By this, the paper and its contribution will become accessible to a wider audience. Mino
**S1.** Despite the paper's dense and technical nature, it is well-articulated: the notation is clear, and the results are easy to understand. **S2.** The related work is well-detailed, including most relevant references. **S3.** The unified framework that encompasses both local and global explanations, including probabilistic approaches, is intuitive. **S4.** To my knowledge, Propositions 2, 3, and 4 appear to be novel contributions. In most cases, the negative results are not straightfor
**W1.** I find Algorithm 2 confusing, as it seems incorrect; the marginal gain should be maximized. **W2.** I think that the positive results presented in the main theorems (1-4) are primarily applications of existing findings. **W3.** Theorem 4 does not truly deliver a constant-factor approximation, as the curvature could be unbounded. **W4.** The upper bounds for Theorems 3 and 4 appear somewhat loose, and these approximation results lack lower bounds necessary to establish tightness.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
