arXiv subjects

Stefano Teso

Publications and source records attributed to Stefano Teso.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Too Much of the Same: From Algorithmic to Human Bias in Learning to Defer

Learning to Defer (LtD) extends supervised learning by allowing a Machine Learning (ML) model to defer harder or less confident decisions to a human expert. Despite being geared for human-AI collaboration, LtD strategies neglect the potential negative interference of human cognitive biases. Our contribution is twofold. First, we demonstrate that standard LtD strategies show class-dependent sampling bias in classification tasks in practice, and thus may disproportionately defer the minority classes when applied to imbalanced datasets. Second, we show that such asymmetries in task delegation may trigger human biases, ultimately leading to poorer downstream decision making. Specifically, we conduct a user study ($N=226$) where participants complete a classification task on a set of deferred items, with conditions presenting different levels of class imbalance. Our results show that participants exposed to a highly imbalanced rejection set achieved lower classification accuracy in the majority class compared to those exposed to a more balanced set, regardless of which class constituted the majority. Exploratory analyses suggest that this may be an instance of the Test-taker's effect, which stems from a mismatch between the actual distribution of classes and the participants' expectations about that distribution. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the deployment of LtD algorithms.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Overcoming Shortcut Learning in Graph Neural Networks through Active Explanation Guidance

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) can solve prediction tasks by unintentionally exploiting shortcuts---that is, edges, nodes, and features that correlate with but are not causal for the prediction---which compromise their reliability in out-of-distribution tasks. We introduce XIGL, an architecture-agnostic human-in-the-loop strategy for removing such shortcuts from GNNs. Our key insight is twofold. On the one hand, reliance on shortcuts can be detected by inspecting GNN explanations. On the other hand, once made aware of such shortcuts, sufficiently expert users can provide tailored corrective feedback, which helps deconfound the model. XIGL supports any query strategy; however, since corrective feedback can be expensive to acquire, we develop an active learning strategy for prioritizing explanations that are more likely to display shortcut behavior, lowering annotation and cognitive costs. We showcase the effectiveness of XIGL, including both existing and proposed explanation-based strategies, on several GNN architectures. Our implementation is available online.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Concise and Logically Consistent Conformal Sets for Neuro-Symbolic Concept-Based Models

Neuro-Symbolic Concept-based Models (NeSy-CBMs) are a family of architectures that integrate neural networks with symbolic reasoning for enhanced reliability in high-stakes applications. They work by first extracting high-level concepts from the input and then inferring a task label from these compatibly with given logical constraints. Yet, their label and concept predictions can be overconfident, making it difficult for stakeholders to gauge when the model's decisions can be trusted. We address this issue by integrating ideas from Conformal Prediction (CP), a framework providing rigorous, distribution-free coverage guarantees. We formalize three desiderata -- consistency, coverage, and conciseness -- that any conformal method for NeSy-CBMs should satisfy, and show that existing approaches fall short of at least one. We then introduce COCOCO, a post-hoc framework that conformalizes concepts and labels jointly and reconciles them via a single deduction-abduction revision step. COCOCO satisfies all three desiderata, retains distribution-free coverage, is robust to imperfect knowledge and supports user-specified size budgets. Our experiments on 8 data sets highlight how COCOCO compares favorably against competitors and natural baselines in terms of performance and set size.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Concepts Worth Having: Refining VLM-Guided Concept Bottleneck Models with Minimal Annotations

Concept-bottleneck models (CBMs) are neural classifiers that compute predictions from high-level concepts extracted from the input. CBMs ensure stakeholders can understand the concepts -- and the predictions they entail -- by learning these from concept-level annotations, which are however seldom available. Recent CBM architectures work around this issue by obtaining annotations from Vision-Language Models (VLMs). While greatly broadening applicability, doing so can yield lower quality concepts and therefore less interpretable models. We strike for a middle ground by introducing Vision-plus-Human-guided CBM (VH-CBM), a hybrid approach that exploits both VLMs and a small amount of dense annotations. VH-CBM employs a Gaussian Process in the VLM's embedding space, which captures useful global information about the target domain, to propagate the expert's supervision to any target data point. Our empirical evaluation shows how VH-CBM predicts more accurate concepts than VLM-guided CBMs even when annotating as little as 1% of the data, while sporting better concept calibration and supporting active learning.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Hybrid Decision Making via Conformal VLM-generated Guidance

Building on recent advances in AI, hybrid decision making (HDM) holds the promise of improving human decision quality and reducing cognitive load. We work in the context of learning to guide (LtG), a recently proposed HDM framework in which the human is always responsible for the final decision: rather than suggesting decisions, in LtG the AI supplies (textual) guidance useful for facilitating decision making. One limiting factor of existing approaches is that their guidance compounds information about all possible outcomes, and as a result it can be difficult to digest. We address this issue by introducing ConfGuide, a novel LtG approach that generates more succinct and targeted guidance. To this end, it employs conformal risk control to select a set of outcomes, ensuring a cap on the false negative rate. We demonstrate our approach on a real-world multi-label medical diagnosis task. Our empirical evaluation highlights the promise of ConfGuide.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

GNN Explanations that do not Explain and How to find Them

Explanations provided by Self-explainable Graph Neural Networks (SE-GNNs) are fundamental for understanding the model's inner workings and for identifying potential misuse of sensitive attributes. Although recent works have highlighted that these explanations can be suboptimal and potentially misleading, a characterization of their failure cases is unavailable. In this work, we identify a critical failure of SE-GNN explanations: explanations can be unambiguously unrelated to how the SE-GNNs infer labels. We show that, on the one hand, many SE-GNNs can achieve optimal true risk while producing these degenerate explanations, and on the other, most faithfulness metrics can fail to identify these failure modes. Our empirical analysis reveals that degenerate explanations can be maliciously planted (allowing an attacker to hide the use of sensitive attributes) and can also emerge naturally, highlighting the need for reliable auditing. To address this, we introduce a novel faithfulness metric that reliably marks degenerate explanations as unfaithful, in both malicious and natural settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/steveazzolin/gnn_deg_expl.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effect

Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations. In a nutshell, XIL algorithms select a number of items on which an AI model made a decision (e.g. images and their tags) and present them to users, together with corresponding explanations (e.g. image regions that drive the model's decision). Then, users supply corrective feedback for the explanations, which the algorithm uses to improve the model. Despite showing promise in debugging tasks, recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback. We argue that these studies are not entirely conclusive, as the experimental designs and tasks employed differ substantially from common XIL use cases, complicating interpretation. To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies (n = 713 total) designed to mimic common XIL tasks. Specifically, we assessed order effects both within and between debugging sessions by manipulating the order in which correct and wrong explanations are presented to participants. Order effects had a limited, through significant impact on users' agreement with the model (i.e., a behavioral measure of their trust), and only when examined withing debugging sessions, not between them. The quality of users' feedback was generally satisfactory, with order effects exerting only a small and inconsistent influence in both experiments. Overall, our findings suggest that order effects do not pose a significant issue for the successful employment of XIL approaches. More broadly, our work contributes to the ongoing efforts for understanding human factors in AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Symbol Grounding in Neuro-Symbolic AI: A Gentle Introduction to Reasoning Shortcuts

Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI aims to develop deep neural networks whose predictions comply with prior knowledge encoding, e.g. safety or structural constraints. As such, it represents one of the most promising avenues for reliable and trustworthy AI. The core idea behind NeSy AI is to combine neural and symbolic steps: neural networks are typically responsible for mapping low-level inputs into high-level symbolic concepts, while symbolic reasoning infers predictions compatible with the extracted concepts and the prior knowledge. Despite their promise, it was recently shown that - whenever the concepts are not supervised directly - NeSy models can be affected by Reasoning Shortcuts (RSs). That is, they can achieve high label accuracy by grounding the concepts incorrectly. RSs can compromise the interpretability of the model's explanations, performance in out-of-distribution scenarios, and therefore reliability. At the same time, RSs are difficult to detect and prevent unless concept supervision is available, which is typically not the case. However, the literature on RSs is scattered, making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to understand and tackle this challenging problem. This overview addresses this issue by providing a gentle introduction to RSs, discussing their causes and consequences in intuitive terms. It also reviews and elucidates existing theoretical characterizations of this phenomenon. Finally, it details methods for dealing with RSs, including mitigation and awareness strategies, and maps their benefits and limitations. By reformulating advanced material in a digestible form, this overview aims to provide a unifying perspective on RSs to lower the bar to entry for tackling them. Ultimately, we hope this overview contributes to the development of reliable NeSy and trustworthy AI models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Knowing What You Cannot Explain: Learning to Reject Low-Quality Explanations

Learning to Reject (LtR) frameworks allow ML models to abstain from uncertain predictions and promote user trust. However, since current LtR strategies focus solely on predictive performance, they completely neglect explanation quality. Low-quality explanations -- whether they inaccurately reflect the model's reasoning or fail to satisfy users -- can severely compromise trust assessments and induce over-reliance on incorrect predictions. We argue that models should abstain from making a prediction when they cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for it and introduce a framework for learning to reject low-quality explanations (LtX) in which predictors are equipped with a rejector that evaluates the explanation quality. Focusing on popular attribution techniques, we propose REX (REjector of low-quality eXplanations), which learns a rejector from explanation quality labels combining machine-side judgments with explicit human annotations to assess explanation quality. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that \method outperforms popular LtR strategies and baselines relying on isolated explanation metrics. Finally, to support future research, we publicly release a novel, larger-scale dataset of 1050 human-annotated machine explanations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

MedGellan: LLM-Generated Medical Guidance to Support Physicians

Medical decision-making is a critical task, where errors can result in serious, potentially life-threatening consequences. While full automation remains challenging, hybrid frameworks that combine machine intelligence with human oversight offer a practical alternative. In this paper, we present MedGellan, a lightweight, annotation-free framework that uses a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate clinical guidance from raw medical records, which is then used by a physician to predict diagnoses. MedGellan uses a Bayesian-inspired prompting strategy that respects the temporal order of clinical data. Preliminary experiments show that the guidance generated by the LLM with MedGellan improves diagnostic performance, particularly in recall and $F_1$ score.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Personalized Interpretability -- Interactive Alignment of Prototypical Parts Networks

Concept-based interpretable neural networks have gained significant attention due to their intuitive and easy-to-understand explanations based on case-based reasoning, such as "this bird looks like those sparrows". However, a major limitation is that these explanations may not always be comprehensible to users due to concept inconsistency, where multiple visual features are inappropriately mixed (e.g., a bird's head and wings treated as a single concept). This inconsistency breaks the alignment between model reasoning and human understanding. Furthermore, users have specific preferences for how concepts should look, yet current approaches provide no mechanism for incorporating their feedback. To address these issues, we introduce YoursProtoP, a novel interactive strategy that enables the personalization of prototypical parts - the visual concepts used by the model - according to user needs. By incorporating user supervision, YoursProtoP adapts and splits concepts used for both prediction and explanation to better match the user's preferences and understanding. Through experiments on both the synthetic FunnyBirds dataset and a real-world scenario using the CUB, CARS, and PETS datasets in a comprehensive user study, we demonstrate the effectiveness of YoursProtoP in achieving concept consistency without compromising the accuracy of the model.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

If Concept Bottlenecks are the Question, are Foundation Models the Answer?

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are neural networks designed to conjoin high performance with ante-hoc interpretability. CBMs work by first mapping inputs (e.g., images) to high-level concepts (e.g., visible objects and their properties) and then use these to solve a downstream task (e.g., tagging or scoring an image) in an interpretable manner. Their performance and interpretability, however, hinge on the quality of the concepts they learn. The go-to strategy for ensuring good quality concepts is to leverage expert annotations, which are expensive to collect and seldom available in applications. Researchers have recently addressed this issue by introducing "VLM-CBM" architectures that replace manual annotations with weak supervision from foundation models. It is however unclear what is the impact of doing so on the quality of the learned concepts. To answer this question, we put state-of-the-art VLM-CBMs to the test, analyzing their learned concepts empirically using a selection of significant metrics. Our results show that, depending on the task, VLM supervision can sensibly differ from expert annotations, and that concept accuracy and quality are not strongly correlated. Our code is available at https://github.com/debryu/CQA.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Shortcuts and Identifiability in Concept-based Models from a Neuro-Symbolic Lens

Concept-based Models are neural networks that learn a concept extractor to map inputs to high-level concepts and an inference layer to translate these into predictions. Ensuring these modules produce interpretable concepts and behave reliably in out-of-distribution is crucial, yet the conditions for achieving this remain unclear. We study this problem by establishing a novel connection between Concept-based Models and reasoning shortcuts (RSs), a common issue where models achieve high accuracy by learning low-quality concepts, even when the inference layer is fixed and provided upfront. Specifically, we extend RSs to the more complex setting of Concept-based Models and derive theoretical conditions for identifying both the concepts and the inference layer. Our empirical results highlight the impact of RSs and show that existing methods, even combined with multiple natural mitigation strategies, often fail to meet these conditions in practice.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Topological Self-Explainable GNNs: A Formal Explainability Perspective

Self-Explainable Graph Neural Networks (SE-GNNs) are popular explainable-by-design GNNs, but their explanations' properties and limitations are not well understood. Our first contribution fills this gap by formalizing the explanations extracted by some popular SE-GNNs, referred to as Minimal Explanations (MEs), and comparing them to established notions of explanations, namely Prime Implicant (PI) and faithful explanations. Our analysis reveals that MEs match PI explanations for a restricted but significant family of tasks. In general, however, they can be less informative than PI explanations and are surprisingly misaligned with widely accepted notions of faithfulness. Although faithful and PI explanations are informative, they are intractable to find and we show that they can be prohibitively large. Given these observations, a natural choice is to augment SE-GNNs with alternative modalities of explanations taking care of SE-GNNs' limitations. To this end, we propose Dual-Channel GNNs that integrate a white-box rule extractor and a standard SE-GNN, adaptively combining both channels. Our experiments show that even a simple instantiation of Dual-Channel GNNs can recover succinct rules and perform on par or better than widely used SE-GNNs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Time Can Invalidate Algorithmic Recourse

Algorithmic Recourse (AR) aims to provide users with actionable steps to overturn unfavourable decisions made by machine learning predictors. However, these actions often take time to implement (e.g., getting a degree can take years), and their effects may vary as the world evolves. Thus, it is natural to ask for recourse that remains valid in a dynamic environment. In this paper, we study the robustness of algorithmic recourse over time by casting the problem through the lens of causality. We demonstrate theoretically and empirically that (even robust) causal AR methods can fail over time, except in the -- unlikely -- case that the world is stationary. Even more critically, unless the world is fully deterministic, counterfactual AR cannot be solved optimally. To account for this, we propose a simple yet effective algorithm for temporal AR that explicitly accounts for time under the assumption of having access to an estimator approximating the stochastic process. Our simulations on synthetic and realistic datasets show how considering time produces more resilient solutions to potential trends in the data distribution.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integration

Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation. However, current LLMs are far from reliable: they are prone to generating non-factual information and, more crucially, to contradicting themselves when prompted to reason about relations between entities of the world. These problems are currently addressed with large scale fine-tuning or by delegating reasoning to external tools. In this work, we strive for a middle ground and introduce a loss based on neuro-symbolic reasoning that teaches an LLM to be logically consistent with an external set of facts and rules and improves self-consistency even when the LLM is fine-tuned on a limited set of facts. Our approach also allows to easily combine multiple logical constraints at once in a principled way, delivering LLMs that are more consistent w.r.t. all constraints and improve over several baselines w.r.t. a given constraint. Moreover, our method allows LLMs to extrapolate to unseen but semantically similar factual knowledge, represented in unseen datasets, more systematically.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Spurious Correlations in Concept Drift: Can Explanatory Interaction Help?

Long-running machine learning models face the issue of concept drift (CD), whereby the data distribution changes over time, compromising prediction performance. Updating the model requires detecting drift by monitoring the data and/or the model for unexpected changes. We show that, however, spurious correlations (SCs) can spoil the statistics tracked by detection algorithms. Motivated by this, we introduce ebc-exstream, a novel detector that leverages model explanations to identify potential SCs and human feedback to correct for them. It leverages an entropy-based heuristic to reduce the amount of necessary feedback, cutting annotation costs. Our preliminary experiments on artificially confounded data highlight the promise of ebc-exstream for reducing the impact of SCs on detection.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Reconsidering Faithfulness in Regular, Self-Explainable and Domain Invariant GNNs

As Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) become more pervasive, it becomes paramount to build reliable tools for explaining their predictions. A core desideratum is that explanations are \textit{faithful}, \ie that they portray an accurate picture of the GNN's reasoning process. However, a number of different faithfulness metrics exist, begging the question of what is faithfulness exactly and how to achieve it. We make three key contributions. We begin by showing that \textit{existing metrics are not interchangeable} -- \ie explanations attaining high faithfulness according to one metric may be unfaithful according to others -- and can systematically ignore important properties of explanations. We proceed to show that, surprisingly, \textit{optimizing for faithfulness is not always a sensible design goal}. Specifically, we prove that for injective regular GNN architectures, perfectly faithful explanations are completely uninformative. This does not apply to modular GNNs, such as self-explainable and domain-invariant architectures, prompting us to study the relationship between architectural choices and faithfulness. Finally, we show that \textit{faithfulness is tightly linked to out-of-distribution generalization}, in that simply ensuring that a GNN can correctly recognize the domain-invariant subgraph, as prescribed by the literature, does not guarantee that it is invariant unless this subgraph is also faithful.The code is publicly available on GitHub

cs.LG↗