Comprehensible counterfactual explanation on Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test is popularly used in many applications, such as anomaly detection, astronomy, database security and AI systems. One challenge remained untouched is how we can obtain an explanation on why a test set fails the KS test. In this paper, we tackle the problem of producing counterfactual explanations for test data failing the KS test. Concept-wise, we propose the notion of most comprehensible counterfactual explanations, which accommodates both the KS test data and the user domain knowledge in producing explanations. Computation-wise, we develop an efficient algorithm MOCHE (for MOst CompreHensible Explanation) that avoids enumerating and checking an exponential number of subsets of the test set failing the KS test. MOCHE not only guarantees to produce the most comprehensible counterfactual explanations, but also is orders of magnitudes faster than the baselines. Experiment-wise, we present a systematic empirical study on a series of benchmark real datasets to verify the effectiveness, efficiency and scalability of most comprehensible counterfactual explanations and MOCHE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".