Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Cardinality-Minimal Explanations for Monotonic Neural Networks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2205.09901 v3 pith:RKJXMHJL submitted 2022-05-19 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords neuralalgorithmsdecisioneverywheregivenintractablemethodsmonotonic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in explanation methods for neural model predictions that offer precise formal guarantees. These include abductive (respectively, contrastive) methods, which aim to compute minimal subsets of input features that are sufficient for a given prediction to hold (respectively, to change a given prediction). The corresponding decision problems are, however, known to be intractable. In this paper, we investigate whether tractability can be regained by focusing on neural models implementing a monotonic function. Although the relevant decision problems remain intractable, we can show that they become solvable in polynomial time by means of greedy algorithms if we additionally assume that the activation functions are continuous everywhere and differentiable almost everywhere. Our experiments suggest favourable performance of our algorithms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How to Achieve Higher Accuracy with Less Training Points?

    cs.LG 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Selecting additional training examples with an influence-function score matches or beats full-data logistic regression on a sentiment task while using only 10% to 60% of the available extra data.

Pith tools