\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
 Decoherence is an unavoidable phenomenon that results from the interaction of the system with its surroundings. As a result of the interaction of the system with its surroundings quantum correlation, as a fundamental resource for quantum information processing, decreases. The study of decoherence due to the  relativistic effects has the fundamental importance both from  a fundamental perspective as well as to assist in future experiments involving a relativistic observers. The relativistic effect, known as the Unruh effect \cite{1,2,3}, states that from the point of view of the accelerating moving observer with acceleration $a$ the Minkowski vacuum appears as a hot gas emitting the radiation of the black-body at Unruh temperature
 \begin{equation}
 \tau=\frac{\hbar a}{2 \pi k_B c}
 \end{equation}
 \begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure1a.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure1b.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure1c.eps}
\caption{(a) Concurrence. (b). Teleportation fidelity (c). Bell non-locality as a function of probability parameter for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share the Bell diagonal state $\rho^{AR}=p \vert \psi^- \rangle\langle \psi^- \vert + \frac{1-p}{2}(\vert \psi^+ \rangle\langle \psi^+ \vert + \vert \phi^+ \rangle\langle \phi^+ \vert)$, and $\omega=1$.}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure2a.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure2b.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure2c.eps}
\caption{(a) Concurrence. (b). Teleportation fidelity (c). Bell non-locality as a function of probability parameter for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share a two-qubit werner state $\rho^{AR}=\frac{1-p}{4}I \otimes I + p \vert \psi^{-} \rangle \langle \psi^{-} \vert$, and $\omega=1$.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure3a.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure3b.eps}\quad
  \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Figure3c.eps}
\caption{(a) Concurrence. (b). Teleportation fidelity (c). Bell non-locality as a function of probability parameter for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share a two-qubit X-state $\rho^{AR}=(1-p) \vert \phi^{+} \rangle \langle \phi^{+} \vert + p \vert \psi^{+} \rangle \langle \psi^{+} \vert,$, and $\omega=1$.}
\label{figure3}
\end{figure}
 where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum and $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant.   Unruh effect is calculated with an idealization where acceleration continues  for infinite time. Of course, there have been some interesting studies exploring the finite acceleration aspects of Unruh effect  \cite{4}. The role of interaction time of detectors with the quantum field on Unruh effect has also been studied \cite{5,6}. The Unruh effect creates a decoherence-like effect \cite{7}.  It reduces the quantum information shared between an inertial observer (Alice) and an accelerated observer (Rob), as seen in the latter’s frame, in the case of bosonic or Dirac field modes \cite{8,9}. The study of Unruh effect is part of efforts to understand the relativistic concepts of quantum information theory\cite{10,11,12,13,14,15}. The Unruh channel has the particular importance from the point of view of quantum information theory because it is conjugate degradable channel\cite{16}. A channel is conjugate degradable when the environment can be simulated from the output of the channel.  This feature of the Unruh channel makes it possible to calculate the classical and quantum capacity of the channel, as well as the exchange between these two capacities for a number of scenarios \cite{17,18}. The most important step towards the experimental realization in the field of relativistic quantum information can be obtained through circuit quantum electrodynamics, using superconducting quantum interferometric devices \cite{19}. The concept of geometric phase can also be used to suggest a possible detection of Unruh temperature at sufficiently small accelerations that are experimentally available \cite{20}. In this work, by providing a geometric characterization of the Unruh channel, we will study various types of quantum correlations, such as, Bell inequality violations, entanglement and teleportation  under the effect of the Unruh
channel.  Things that have been done so far in the context of Unruh channel are consist of either the  fermionic \cite{21} or bosonic \cite{22} channels, depending on whether one is working with a Dirac or a scalar field , respectively. According to the finite occupation of the fermionic states, the finite-dimensional density matrices can be obtain which is lead to closed-
form expressions for quantum information quantity. So, the finite-dimensional fermionic Dirac field
are more easily interpreted than the infinite-dimensional bosonic scalar field. TThis makes us eager to consider the behavior  of various concepts of quantum information on the
fermionic Unruh channel. In this work we will consider fermionic Unruh channel associated with Dirac field \cite{21}. It is observed that  in the fermionic channel the entanglement and teleportation fidelity  degrades by increasing the  acceleration. It is also observed that  Bell inequality does not violate for large value of acceleration.
The work is organized as follow.  In Sec.\ref{sec2} we review the notion of the Unruh effect for a
two-mode fermionic system. In Sec.\ref{sec3}, we study the Unruh effect as a quantum noise channel. In Sec.\ref{sec4} we  review briefly the teleportation
fidelity, concurrence, and Bell-CHSH inequality. In Sec.\ref{sec5}, we provide some examples to study the effect of Unruh channel on the teleportation fidelity, concurrence, and Bell-CHSH inequality.  We summarize in Sec.\ref{sec6} the main results of this paper.

\section{Unruh effect}\label{sec2}
The Unruh effect is particularly studied by exploring the Minkowski (flat) spacetime in terms of
Rindler coordinates. the space-time is divided into two disconnected region by  Rindler transformation such that, an accelerated observer in one region is separated
from the other region. Due to the fact that the limited field modes are not connected in these two different regions the quantum information of accelerated observer degrades and leads to thermal bath. As mentioned earlier, the fermionic field with few degree is considered in this work.

Let us Consider the case in which the two observers Alice (A) and Rob (R) share a maximally entangled state of two Dirac field modes at Minkowski spacetime. In addition, we assume that each observer is equipped with detectors that are sensitive only to their respective modes. So, the quantum field is in a state
\begin{equation}\label{me}
\vert \psi \rangle_{AR} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|0_{s}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}\left|0_{k}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}+\left|1_{s}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}\left|1_{k}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}\right),\end{equation}
where $\vert 0_j \rangle^{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\vert 1_j \rangle$ are vacuum and excitation states of the mode $j$ in Minkowski space. The state of Alice is created by the field mode $s$ and she has been equipped with detector sensitive to mode $s$ while Bob's state is constructed by the field mode $k$ and  he has been equipped with detector sensitive to mode $k$. When Bob moves with uniform acceleration $a$, the states corresponding to field mode $k$ must be redefined in Rindler bases in order to describe
what Rob sees. Considering the provided formalism the
Minkowski vacuum state converts to the Unruh mode, while the excited state is
a product state. In terms of modes in different
Rindler region $I$ and $II$, this concept can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{l}
\left|0_{k}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}=\cos r\left|0_{k}\right\rangle_{I}\left|0_{k}\right\rangle_{I I}+\sin r\left|1_{k}\right\rangle_{I}\left|1_{k}\right\rangle_{I I} \\
\left|1_{k}\right\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}=\left|1_{k}\right\rangle_{I}\left|0_{k}\right\rangle_{I I}
\end{array}\end{equation}
where $\cos r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{\frac{-2 \pi \omega c}{a}}}}$, $\omega$ is the Dirac particle frequency and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum. Also worth mentioning that $a \in [0, \infty]$ and so we have $\cos r \in [\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},1]$. Using this formulation the maximally entangled state in Eq.(\ref{me}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vert \psi \rangle &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert 0_s\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}(\cos r \vert 0_k \rangle_{I} \vert 0_k \rangle_{II}+ \\ \nonumber
&+&\cos r \vert 1_k \rangle_{I} \vert 1_k \rangle_{II})
+\vert 1_s\rangle^{\mathcal{M}}\vert 1_k \rangle_{I} \vert 0_k \rangle_{II} ),
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the fact that the two region $I$ and $II$ have no connection with each other in Rindler's space-time, it is possible to take a partial trace over zone $II$ and obtain the following density matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^{AI}&=&\frac{1}{2}[\cos^{2}r\vert 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},0_{k}^{I}\rangle \langle 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},0_{k}^{I}\vert  + \\ \nonumber
&+&  \cos r(\vert 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},0_{k}^{I}\rangle \langle 1_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\vert + \vert 1_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\rangle \langle 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},0_{k}^{I}\vert)+\\ \nonumber
&+& \sin^{2}r \vert 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\rangle \langle 0_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\vert +\vert 1_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\rangle \langle 1_{s}^{\mathcal{M}},1_{k}^{I}\vert].
\end{eqnarray}
In the following we will discuss about the channel interpretation of the Unruh effect.
\section{Characterization of Unruh Channel}\label{sec3}
In this section, Unruh channel is described from the insight of dynamical map in open quantum systems. Here the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism is used to define  the Unruh channel. The Choi
matrix corresponding to Unruh channel $\varepsilon_U$, can be derived by applying the Unruh channel on one half of a maximally entangled two-qubit state as
\begin{equation}
\rho_U=
  \left[ {\begin{array}{cccc}
   \cos^2 r & 0 & 0 & \cos r \\
   0 & \sin^2 r & 0 & 0 \\
   0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
   \cos r & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
  \end{array} } \right],
\end{equation}
The Kraus operators of the Unruh channel can be characterized by diagonalizing the Choi Matrix as \cite{23}
\begin{equation}
 K_1=
  \left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   \cos r & 0 \\
   0 & 1 \\
  \end{array} } \right],  \quad K_2=
  \left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   0 & 0 \\
   \sin r & 0 \\
  \end{array} } \right],
\end{equation}
so, the Kraus representation of Unruh channel can be written as
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_U(\rho)=\sum_{j=1,2}K_j \rho K_j^{\dag}
\end{equation}
with the completeness condition
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1,2}K_j^{\dag} K_j = \mathcal{I}
\end{equation}
Looking at the Kraus operators of Unruh channel, it can be seen that this channel is similar to the amplitude damping channel represents the effect of a zero temperature thermal bath \cite{24,25}. However Unruh effect is associated with a finite temperature, so it is logical to expect that the Unruh channel correspond to the generalized amplitude damping channels.
\section{Teleportation, entanglement, and Bell
nonlocality in Unruh channel}\label{sec4}

In this paper, we consider the case in which inertial observer (Alice) wants to teleport to
accelerated observer (Rob) the one-qubit state
\begin{equation}
\vert \psi_{in} \rangle=\cos(\theta/2)\vert 0 \rangle + e^{i \phi}\sin(\theta/2)\vert 1 \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ and $\phi \in[0,2 \pi]$, while one can use a general two-qubit state $\rho  $ as the quantum channel for teleportation. In a standard teleportation protocol in which the Rob is allowed to perform any unitary transformation, wen reproducing the the teleported state, the maximum average teleportation fidelity will be given by \cite{Horodecki}
\begin{equation}
F_{av}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}N(\rho  ),
\end{equation}
where $N(\rho  )=tr \sqrt{T^{\dag}T}$ and $T$ is a $3 \times 3$ positive matrix with the elements $T_{ij}=tr(\rho   \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j)$ where $\sigma_{i,j}$'s are Pauli matrices. In order to teleport $\vert \psi_{in \rangle}$ with higher fidelity than purely classical communication
protocol, one requires the average fidelity is larger than $2/3$.

Since the existence of entanglement between Alice and Rob is necessary for teleportation we  consider the concurrence of $\rho  $ as
\begin{equation}
C(\rho  )=\max \{0, \sqrt{\lambda_{1}}-\sqrt{\lambda_{2}}-\sqrt{\lambda_{3}}-\sqrt{\lambda_{4}}\},\end{equation}
where $\lambda_i$'s are the eigenvalues of the Hermitian operator $\rho\left(\sigma_{2} \otimes \sigma_{2}\right) \rho  ^{*}\left(\sigma_{2} \otimes \sigma_{2}\right)$ arranged in non-increasing order and $\rho  ^{*}$ represents the complex conjugate of $\rho  $. We will also study the Bell non-locality which is helpful to distinguish the two-qubit state $\rho  $ enabling non-classical teleportation
fidelity. For two-qubit states, the Bell non-locality can be detected by violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality  \cite{Clauser,Horodecki}
\begin{equation}
\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho  } \vert = tr(\rho  B_{CHSH}) \leq 2,
\end{equation}
where $B_{CHSH}$ is the CHSH operator. The maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho  } \vert$ can be find as
\begin{equation}\label{max}
B_{max}(\rho)=2 \sqrt{u_1+u_2}
\end{equation}
 where $u_1$ and $u_2$ are two largest eigenvalues of the $T^{\dag}T$. the state $\rho  $ is Bell nonlocal if $B_{max}(\rho  )>2$.
\section{Examples}\label{sec5}
In this section we consider some examples to study the effect of Unruh channel on  teleportation, entanglement, and Bell nonlocality. We will consider three different states with different features.  Alice and Rob first share the states which has mentioned in the examples. Then let Rob move away from stationary Alice with a uniform proper acceleration $a$. Finally we study the teleportation, entanglement, and Bell nonlocality of transformed state.
\subsection{Bell-diagonal state}
At first, we assume that Alice and Rob initially
being at inertial frame and share a Bell-diagonal state of two Dirac field modes
\begin{equation}\label{bell}
\rho^{AR}=\frac{1}{4}(I \otimes I + \sum_{i=1}^{3} r_{i}\sigma_i \otimes \sigma_i)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are Pauli matrices. The above density matrix is positive  if $\vec{r}=(r_1,r_2,r_3)$ belongs to a tetrahedron defined by the set of vertices $(-1,-1,-1)$,$(-1,1,1)$,$(1,-1,1)$ and $(1,1,-1)$. Let us the  case in which $r_1=1-2p$, $r_2=r_3=-p$. So, the state in Eq. (\ref{bell}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AR}=p \vert \psi^- \rangle\langle \psi^- \vert + \frac{1-p}{2}(\vert \psi^+ \rangle\langle \psi^+ \vert + \vert \phi^+ \rangle\langle \phi^+ \vert),
\end{equation}
where $\vert \phi^{\pm} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\vert 00 \rangle \pm \vert 11 \rangle]$ and $\vert \psi^{\pm} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\vert 01 \rangle \pm \vert 10 \rangle]$ are the Bell diagonal states. Rob begins to move with an acceleration $a$ while Alice stay in inertial frame . This is equivalent to the effect of Unruh channel on Rob's state, so the transformed state can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AI}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}(I \otimes K_i)\rho^{AR}(I \otimes K_{i}^{\dag}).
\end{equation}
So, the maximum average teleportation fidelity is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{av}(\rho^{AI})&=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{p^{2}\cos^{4}r}+\frac{1}{12}\sqrt{\cos^{2}r(1-3p-(1-p)\cos r)^{2}} \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{12}\sqrt{\cos^{2}r(3p-1-(1-p)\cos r)^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The concurrence can be obtain as
\begin{equation}
C(\rho^{AI})=2 \max \lbrace c_1, c_2 \rbrace
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
c_1&=&\frac{1}{4} \left(\left| (1-3 p) \cos r\right| -\frac{\sqrt{(p-1) \cos ^2 r ((p+1) \cos 2 r+p-3)}}{\sqrt{2}}\right),  \\
c_2&=&\frac{1}{4} \left(  \left| (p-1) \cos ^2 r \right| -\frac{\sqrt{(p+1) \cos ^2 r ((p-1) \cos 2 r+p+3)}}{\sqrt{2}} \right). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In order to find the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ we have to find the eigenvalues of $T^{\dag} T$. These eigenvalues are
\begin{eqnarray}
u_1&=&\frac{1}{4} \cos ^2 r ((p-1) \cos r-3 p+1)^2, \nonumber \\
u_2&=&\frac{1}{4} \cos ^2 r ((p-1) \cos r+3 p-1)^2 \nonumber \\
u_3&=&p^2 \cos ^4 r.
\end{eqnarray}
So, from Eq.(\ref{max}) and considering the eigenvalues one can find the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ numerically.

In Fig.\ref{figure1}, we show $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$, $C(\rho^{AI})$ and $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ versus probability parameter for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share the Bell diagonal state. As can be seen from Fig.\ref{figure1}(a), concurrence decreases with increasing the acceleration of Rob. Fig.\ref{figure1}(b) shows that $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing  the acceleration of Rob. As can be seen in inertial frame $a=0$ the teleportation fidelity is greater than $2/3$ for all value of probability parameter while for the case in which Rob moves with acceleration $a$ it is smaller than $2/3$ for some values of probability parameter. So, one can concluded that for these values of $p$ and $a$ the states are not good enough to support quantum teleportation protocol. From Fig.\ref{figure1}(c) it can be seen $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing acceleration. It is observed that  the interval of $p$ for which Bell-CHSH inequality  is violated will be smaller with increasing acceleration.
\subsection{Werner state }
As a seconde example we consider the case in which Alice and Rob initially located in inertial frame and share a two-qubit werner state of two Dirac field modes
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AR}=\frac{1-p}{4}I \otimes I + p \vert \psi^{-} \rangle \langle \psi^{-} \vert,
\end{equation}
where $0 \leq p \leq 1$. Rob begins to move with an acceleration $a$ while Alice stay in inertial frame . This is equivalent to the effect of Unruh channel on Rob's state, so the transformed state can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AI}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
 \frac{1-p}{4} \cos ^2 r & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
 0 & \frac{1-p}{4}  \sin ^2 r+\frac{1+p}{4} & -\frac{p}{2}  \cos r & 0 \\
 0 & -\frac{p}{2}  \cos r & \frac{1+p}{4} \cos ^2 r & 0 \\
 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1+p}{4} \sin ^2 r+\frac{1-p}{4} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
The maximum average teleportation fidelity can be obtain as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{av}(\rho^{AI})&=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6} p \cos ^2 r + \frac{p}{3} \cos r.
\end{eqnarray}
The concurrence becomes
\begin{equation}
C(\rho)=2 \max \lbrace 0, c_1\rbrace
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
c_1 = \left| -\frac{p}{2}  \cos r  \right| -\sqrt{\frac{1-p}{4}  \cos ^2(r) \left(\frac{1+p}{4} \sin ^2 r +\frac{1-p}{4}\right)}.
\end{equation}
In order to obtain the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ we have to find the eigenvalues of $T^{\dag} T$. These eigenvalues can be obtain as
\begin{eqnarray}
u_1&=&p^{2}\cos^{2} r, \nonumber \\
u_2&=&p^{2}\cos^{2} r, \nonumber \\
u_3&=&2 p^{2} \cos^{4} r.
\end{eqnarray}
So, from Eq.(\ref{max}) and considering the eigenvalues one can find the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ numerically.

In Fig.\ref{figure2}, $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$, $C(\rho^{AI})$ and $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ are plotted interms of probability parameter $p$ for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share a two-qubit werner state. As can be seen from Fig.\ref{figure2}(a), concurrence decreases with increasing the acceleration of Rob. Fig.\ref{figure2}(b) shows that $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing  the acceleration of Rob. It is observed that for both moving and inertial frame, $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$ is smaller than $2/3$ for some values of probability parameter. So, one can concluded that for these values of $p$ and $a$ the states are not good enough to support quantum teleportation protocol. From Fig.\ref{figure2}(c) it can be seen $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing acceleration. It is observed that  the interval of $p$ for which Bell-CHSH inequality  is violated will be smaller with increasing acceleration.
\subsection{X-state}
As an another example we consider the case in which Alice and Rob initially located in inertial frame and share a two-qubit X-state of two Dirac field modes
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AR}=(1-p) \vert \phi^{+} \rangle \langle \phi^{+} \vert + p \vert \psi^{+} \rangle \langle \psi^{+} \vert,
\end{equation}
where $0 \leq p \leq 1$. Rob begins to move with an acceleration $a$ while Alice stay in inertial frame . This is equivalent to the effect of Unruh channel on Rob's state, so the transformed state can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AI}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
 \frac{1-p}{2} \cos ^2 r  & 0 & 0 & \frac{1-p}{2}  \cos r \\
 0 & \frac{p}{2} +\frac{1-p}{2}  \sin ^2 r  & \frac{p}{2}  \cos  r & 0 \\
 0 & \frac{p}{2}  \cos r & \frac{p}{2}  \cos ^2 r & 0 \\
 \frac{1-p}{2}  \cos r & 0 & 0 & \frac{1-p}{2} + \frac{p}{2} \sin ^2 r \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
The maximum average teleportation fidelity can be obtain as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{av}(\rho^{AI})&=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6} \cos r + \frac{2 p-1}{6} \cos r  + \frac{(2 p-1)^{2}}{6}\cos^{2} r.
\end{eqnarray}
To the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ we must find the eigenvalues of $T^{\dag} T$. These eigenvalues can be obtain as
\begin{eqnarray}
u_1&=&\cos^{2} r, \nonumber \\
u_2&=&(1-2 p)^2 \cos ^2 r, \nonumber \\
u_3&=&(1-2 p)^2 \cos ^4 r.
\end{eqnarray}
So, from Eq.(\ref{max}) and considering the eigenvalues one can find the maximum of $\vert \langle B_{CHSH} \rangle_{\rho^{AR}  } \vert$ numerically.

In Fig.\ref{figure3}, we plot $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$, $C(\rho^{AI})$ and $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ as a function of probability parameter for different value of acceleration $a$, when Alice and Rob initially share the two-qubit X-state. As can be seen from Fig.\ref{figure3}(a), concurrence decreases with increasing the acceleration of Rob. Fig.\ref{figure3}(b) shows that $F_{av}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing  the acceleration of Rob. As can be seen in inertial frame $a=0$ the teleportation fidelity is greater than $2/3$ for all value of probability parameter while for the case in which Rob moves with acceleration $a$ it is smaller than $2/3$ for some values of probability parameter. So, one can concluded that for these values of $p$ and $a$ the states are not good enough to support quantum teleportation protocol. From Fig.\ref{figure3}(c) it can be seen $B_{max}(\rho^{AI})$ decreases with increasing acceleration. It is observed that  the interval of $p$ for which Bell-CHSH inequality  is violated will be smaller with increasing acceleration.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec6}
In this work, the tools in quantum information were used to describe the Unruh-effect. The Unruh effect was considered as a quantum dynamical map with ordinary Kraus representation. In this work we studied the effect of Unruh channel on various quantum correlation such as  the quantum teleportation, entanglement, and Bell inequality violations for a Dirac field mode. We have shown that these correlations decrease with increasing observer acceleration in the moving frame. It has also shown that as a result of the Unruh effect, it is not possible to teleport optimally for some states.


\subsubsection*{\bibname}}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage[dvipsnames,svgnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{capt-of}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{tikz,calc}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3}

\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

\usetikzlibrary{shadows}
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
\usetikzlibrary{trees}
\usetikzlibrary{mindmap}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.callouts}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.text}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathmorphing}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.arrows}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.multipart}
\usetikzlibrary{backgrounds}
\usetikzlibrary{tikzmark}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
\usetikzlibrary{matrix}
\tikzstyle{every picture}+=[remember picture]

\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\bbeta}{\beta}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\btheta}{\theta}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\latentdirection}{\delta}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\bmu}{\mu}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\a}{a}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\e}{e}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\x}{x}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\v}{v}
\DeclareBoldMathCommand{\z}{z}

\newcommand{\x_\textrm{c}}{\x_\textrm{c}}
\newcommand{\z_\textrm{c}}{\z_\textrm{c}}
\newcommand{\x_\textrm{b}}{\x_\textrm{b}}
\newcommand{\xboundaryj}[1]{\x_{\textrm{b},#1}}
\newcommand{\z_\textrm{b}}{\z_\textrm{b}}
\newcommand{\hat{\bbeta}}{\hat{\bbeta}}
\newcommand{\hat{\btheta}}{\hat{\btheta}}
\newcommand{\hat{\beta}_0}{\hat{\beta}_0}
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\color{magenta}TODO: #1}}
\newcommand{\textsc{DBA-Tab}}{\textsc{DBA-Tab}}
\newcommand{\textsc{DBA-Att}}{\textsc{DBA-Att}}
\newcommand{\textsc{LIME-Att}}{\textsc{LIME-Att}}
\newcommand{\textsc{Global}}{\textsc{Global}}
\newcommand{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathcal{Y}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Z}}{\mathcal{Z}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\PL}{\textrm{PL}}
\newcommand{\PW}{\textrm{PW}}
\newcommand{\SL}{\textrm{SL}}
\newcommand{\SW}{\textrm{SW}}
\newcommand{\C}{\textrm{C}}
\newcommand{\sPL}{\widetilde{\PL}}
\newcommand{\sPW}{\widetilde{\PW}}
\newcommand{\sSL}{\widetilde{\SL}}
\newcommand{\sSW}{\widetilde{\SW}}
\newcommand{\sC}{\widetilde{\C}}
\newcommand{\sdPL}{sd_\PL}
\newcommand{\sdPW}{sd_\PW}
\newcommand{\sdSL}{sd_\SL}
\newcommand{\sdSW}{sd_\SW}
\newcommand{\sdC}{sd_\C}
\newcommand{\muPL}{\mu_\PL}
\newcommand{\muPW}{\mu_\PW}
\newcommand{\muSL}{\mu_\SL}
\newcommand{\muSW}{\mu_\SW}
\newcommand{\muC}{\mu_\C}
\newcommand{\normaldist}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\empmean}{\hat{\bmu}}
\newcommand{\empSigma}{\hat{\Sigma}}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sign}{sign}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}

\title{Explaining Predictions by Approximating\\the Local Decision
Boundary}

\author{Georgios Vlassopoulos\\
Jheronimus Academy of Data Science\\
\texttt{georgiosvlassopoulos@gmail.com}%
\and
Tim van Erven\\
University of Amsterdam\\
\texttt{tim@timvanerven.nl}%
\and
Henry Brighton\\
Tilburg University\\
\texttt{brighton@uvt.nl}%
\and
Vlado Menkovski\\
Eindhoven University of Technology\\
\texttt{v.menkovski@tue.nl}%
}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
  Constructing accurate model-agnostic explanations for opaque machine
  learning models remains a challenging task. Classification models for
  high-dimensional data, like images, are often inherently complex. To
  reduce this complexity, individual predictions may be explained
  locally, either in terms of a simpler local surrogate model or by
  communicating how the predictions contrast with those of another
  class. However, existing approaches still fall short in the following
  ways: a)~they measure locality using a (Euclidean) metric that is not
  meaningful for non-linear high-dimensional data; or b) they do not
  attempt to explain the decision boundary, which is the most relevant
  characteristic of classifiers that are optimized for classification
  accuracy; or c) they do not give the user any freedom in specifying
  attributes that are meaningful to them. We address these issues in a
  new procedure for local decision boundary approximation (DBA). To
  construct a meaningful metric, we train a variational autoencoder to
  learn a Euclidean latent space of encoded data representations. We
  impose interpretability by exploiting attribute annotations to map the
  latent space to attributes that are meaningful to the user. A
  difficulty in evaluating explainability approaches is the lack of a
  ground truth. We address this by introducing a new benchmark data set
  with artificially generated Iris images, and showing that we can
  recover the latent attributes that locally determine the class. We
  further evaluate our approach on tabular data and on the CelebA image
  data set.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}

Over the last few years, explaining opaque machine learning (ML) models
has become a topic of increasing attention
\cite{BarredoEtAl2019-taxonomy1,taxonomy3,taxonomy4,taxonomy5,taxonomy6}. This
attention arises from multiple needs of ML users, such as ensuring model
\emph{trustworthiness}, detecting and removing unwanted biases
(\emph{fairness}) and understanding \emph{causal relationships}
\cite{BarredoEtAl2019-taxonomy1}. For many of these needs, it is crucial that
explanations are able to identify and communicate which properties of
the input are the most important for the model's predictions. These
properties can be identified either by modifying the underlying
mechanism of the model in a trade-off with predictive accuracy, or by
designing algorithms that explain the model's behavior post-hoc after
training. For the latter, one may take into account the model's internal
mechanisms and develop frameworks for a specific category of models
(e.g.\ for neural
networks \cite{LRP,TCAV,CAM} or random forests \cite{forestfloor}), or
take a \emph{model-agnostic} approach that can explain many different
types of models \cite{LIME,Shapp,grex,distill_n_compare,sensitivity,CEM}.

Predictive models are often complex and controlled by
many parameters that cannot all be communicated to a user. This
complexity can be reduced by explaining only the model's
behavior in a \emph{local} region of the feature space near a given
input $\x_0$. Local model-agnostic explanations may be
\emph{example-based}, by simulating a data point $\x_\textrm{c}$ from a
different class that is close to $\x_0$ \cite{gspheres,CEM}. This has the
drawback that it is left to the user to identify the relevant
differences between $\x_\textrm{c}$ and $\x_0$, which may be difficult for
high-dimensional data like images, especially when $\x_\textrm{c}$ and
$\x_0$ are close. An alternative is to approximate the model locally by
an interpretable \emph{surrogate model}, which is usually a linear
model, a set of decision rules or a decision tree
\cite{LIME,anchor}.

We propose three criteria that local model-agnostic
explanations should satisfy. First, locality needs to be measured by a
\emph{metric} that is \emph{meaningful} for the data at hand. For
unstructured low-dimensional data without strong correlations between
the features, it may be very reasonable to use Euclidean distance, but
for highly structured data we typically need a more refined measure. For
instance, the difference in pixel values between two images will be
affected greatly by the slight movement of an object, by a variation in
lighting or by adding minor noise, without users perceiving any relevant
difference in content. Lack of an appropriate metric prevents some
explainability methods from scaling up to image data
\cite{LocalSurrogate} and is not even fully avoided by some methods that
do apply to image data \cite{CEM-MAF}.

Second, we posit that explanations of classifiers should depend solely
on the \emph{decision boundary} between classes, and not on any class
probability estimates the classifiers may output in addition. Since
classifiers are typically optimized for prediction accuracy and not for
probability estimation, they often output probabilities that are
uncalibrated
\cite{GuoEtAl2017-NNCalibration,Niculescu-MizilEtAl2005-OldSchoolCalibration}
and therefore lack interpretability. Moreover, users are directly
affected by the decision boundary and not by probabilities: someone who
is refused a mortgage may not care whether a better credit score could
have reduced their estimated probability of defaulting on payment from
0.62 to 0.61, but they likely would care what would have changed the
bank's decision. Finally, output probabilities may average the influence
of multiple nearby parts of the decision boundary together, and thereby
fail to represent any of these parts accurately, as shown by
\citet{LocalSurrogate}.

Third, a consensus appears to be forming in the literature that
explanations need to be tailored to the target audience and context
\cite{BarredoEtAl2019-taxonomy1,taxonomy6}: an ML developer
who is trying to fix classification errors should not be given the same
output as an authority assessing compliance with fairness regulations.
Consequently, there should be a way for the user to \emph{specify
attributes} of the data that are interpretable and relevant to them.
When the user is an ML developer, such attributes may sometimes take a
convenient form that can be automatically extracted, like for instance
superpixels in an image. But in general it may be required to invest
additional resources into learning the concepts that a given type of
user can understand, for instance by collecting additional data
annotations.

\paragraph{New Method}

We introduce the first model-agnostic method to explain binary
classifiers that meets all three of these criteria. The procedure
performs local decision boundary approximation (DBA) by searching for
the closest decision boundary point $\x_\textrm{b}$ to $\x_0$, and
generating a sample of artificial data points around it which are
labeled by the model that we want to explain. A linear surrogate model
is then fit to this sample. We interpret the coefficients of this linear
model as the direction of minimal change to switch the class of $\x_0$.
Instead of measuring distance in the input space, we train a variational
autoencoder (VAE) \cite{KingmaWelling2013} to learn a Euclidean latent
space of encoded data representations, and measure distance in this
latent space. We also use attribute annotations to learn mappings from
the latent space to user-specified attributes, and fit the linear
surrogate in terms of the attributes. We restrict the search for
$\x_\textrm{b}$ to the data manifold by performing bisecting line searches
between $\x_0$ and a selection of nearby training data points from the
opposite class.
This has the additional benefit that the run-time of the search
procedure (almost) does not depend on the dimension. Both the line
searches and the sampling step take place in the latent space learned by
the VAE. Our main contributions lie in the new search and sampling
procedures and the way they are combined with a VAE and user-specified
attributes. We further adjust the training procedure of the VAE to favor
preservation of class probabilities, which can have a significant
effect.

\paragraph{New Evaluation Data}

A difficulty in evaluating explainability approaches is the lack of a
ground truth. To remedy this, we introduce the Artificial Iris (AIris)
data set, with simulated images of flowers that can be used as a
benchmark for explainability methods. We label the classes based on two
hyperplanes defined by latent parameters of the flowers like petal
length and sepal width. We then show that our method is able to recover
the true coefficients of the hyperplanes with high accuracy from the
predictions of a convolutional neural network (CNN) that is trained to
classify near-perfectly.

\paragraph{Related Work}

Existing methods for local model-agnostic explanation include LIME
\cite{LIME}, kernel SHAP \cite{Shapp}, LORE \cite{LORE} and MAPLE
\cite{MAPLE}. Among these, kernel SHAP, LORE and MAPLE are only for
tabular data, and therefore do not directly address our first and third
criteria of using a meaningful metric and allowing the user to specify
interpretable attributes. In addition, none of these methods aims to
explain the decision boundary (our second criterion): LIME and SHAP
sample around $\x_0$ instead of near the decision boundary. The same holds
for the way LORE generates samples from the same class as $\x_0$. MAPLE
weights training points by their probability of being in the same class as
$\x_0$, which again leads to high weights near $\x_0$ but not on the
opposite side of the decision boundary. For LIME, the sampling procedure
and the surrogate model can be specified in terms of abstract binary
attributes of $\x_0$, for which the authors propose specific choices
(e.g.\ superpixels for images), but which can in principle be specified
by the user (thus satisfying our third criterion).

Our use of a latent space for model-agnostic explanation is not new. For
instance, word embeddings have been widely used for natural language
data to extend the applicability of tabular explanation methods
\cite{LIME,L2X}, ALIME \cite{ALIME} uses a denoising autoencoder,
CEM-MAF \cite{CEM-MAF} uses the latent space of a VAE or generative
adversarial network (GAN), and ABELE \cite{ABELE} uses an adversarial
autoencoder. The difference with these prior works is that none of them
tries to explain the decision boundary directly: ALIME is an extension
of LIME, CEM-MAF generates a contrastive example $\x_\textrm{c}$ from the
opposite class that is near to $\x_0$ but need not be close to the
decision boundary, and ABELE uses the sampling procedure from LORE.

Existing methods that do attempt to explain the decision boundary
directly are L2X \cite{L2X} and LocalSurrogate
\cite{LocalSurrogate,gspheres}. But again these are both for tabular
data only. L2X does incorporate a meaningful `metric' based on mutual
information between $\x_0$ and its explanation, but it can only output
explanations that consist of a sparse subset of elements of $\x_0$, so
it fails our third criterion of incorporating user-specified attributes.
LocalSurrogate is similar in spirit to our DBA procedure, but attempts
to sample densely in a sphere, which is not feasible beyond very small
dimensions.

Finally, we mention ANCHORS \cite{anchor}, which produces local decision
rules that are consistent with the decision boundary, and
TCAV \cite{TCAV}, which uses attribute annotations to learn a mapping from the
internal state of a neural network to user-defined attributes.

\paragraph{Outline}

\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}

In the next section we describe our new DBA method.
Section~\ref{sec:AIris} then introduces the Artificial Iris data set and
presents experiments comparing DBA to a variant of LIME and to CEM-MAF.
Section~\ref{sec:celeba} extends the evaluation to the CelebA data set
\cite{celeba} with real-world celebrity images. We show there that
blurriness of images and open mouths improperly affect classifications.
Finally, we conclude with a summary and discussion of the requirement to
apply our approach. Details and additional experiments, including a
comparison between DBA, LIME and MAPLE on tabular data from several
standard UCI data sets, are postponed to the Appendix.

\section{Method: Local Decision Boundary Approximation}
\label{sec:dba}

\begin{figure}[tbp]
    \begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}

        \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{toy_example_no_dot.pdf}
        \caption{\textsc{DBA-Tab}{} on a toy example}
        \label{fig:dba_toy}
    \end{subfigure}
    \hspace{1.5cm}
    \begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}

        \begin{tikzpicture}[
          space/.style={align=center,rectangle,fill=LightBlue!60,draw=LightBlue,text
          width=5em},
          arrowstyle/.style={thick,>={Stealth[length=4mm]}},
          shorten >=0.5em,
          shorten <=0.5em,
          node distance=2cm]
        \matrix[ampersand replacement=\&,row sep=24mm,column sep=25mm] {
          \node [space] (class) {$\mathcal{Y}$ \\ class};
          \& \node [space] (attributes) {$\mathcal{A}$ \\ attributes};
          \\
          \node [space] (inputs) {$\mathcal{X}$ \\ inputs};
          \& \node [space] (latent) {$\mathcal{Z}$ \\ latent};
          \\
        };
       \path[->,arrowstyle,color=Maroon] (attributes) edge node
       [above=1ex,color=black]
       {\small{Explanation $\hat{\bbeta}$}} (class);
       \path[->,arrowstyle] (inputs) edge node [right,text width=6em]
       {\small{Black-box Classifier $f$}} (class);
       \path[<->,arrowstyle] (inputs) edge node [above]
       {\small{VAE}} (latent);
       \path[->,arrowstyle] (latent) edge node [right,text width=4em]
       {\small{Linear\\ Annotators $a_1,\ldots,a_p$}} (attributes);
        \end{tikzpicture}
        \caption{\textsc{DBA-Att}{} spaces and their relations}
        \label{fig:attdba_scheme}
    \end{subfigure}
    \caption{Illustration of the \textsc{DBA-Tab}{} and \textsc{DBA-Att}{} procedures}
    \label{fig:illustration}
\end{figure}

Let $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y} = \{-1,+1\}$ be the binary classifier, whose
decision for input $\x_0 \in \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is to be
explained. Suppose also that the training data $D =
\big((\x_1,y_1),\ldots,(\x_n,y_n)\big)$ on which $f$ has been trained are
still available, with $\x_i \in \mathcal{X}$ and $y_i \in \mathcal{Y}$. We
first present a simplified version of our method: \textsc{DBA-Tab}{}, which is
suitable for tabular data. This simplified version applies if the inputs
$\x$ consist of $d$ features that are already interpretable to the user,
so we do not need a VAE or separate interpretable attributes. It further
requires that the features have been suitably standardized and
decorrelated to make Euclidean distance an appropriate metric for
$\mathcal{X}$. \textsc{DBA-Tab}{} consists of the following steps, which are
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:dba_toy}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Detection:} Search along the manifold of the training data
$D$ to find the point $\x_\textrm{b}$ on the decision boundary that is
closest to $\x_0$.
\end{enumerate}
This is implemented by selecting the $k$ closest points to $\x_0$ from
$D$ that are from the opposite class. For each selected point
$(\x_j,y_j)$, we then perform a line search using the bisection method
to find a point $\xboundaryj{j}$ on the line segment between
$\x_0$ and $\x_j$ that is on the decision boundary of $f$. We call
$\x_j$ the \emph{corresponding bisected point} for $\xboundaryj{j}$.
Finally, among these decision boundary points
$\xboundaryj{1},\ldots,\xboundaryj{k}$, we choose $\x_\textrm{b}$ to be the
point that is closest to~$\x_0$. A notable advantage of this approach is
computational efficiency: instead of searching in $d$ dimensions for a
boundary of unknown shape, it only needs to perform $k$ one-dimensional
line searches.
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item \emph{Simulation:} Randomly generate $m$ points near $\x_\textrm{b}$
on both sides of the decision boundary of~$f$ and label them with $f$ to
obtain a sample $S = \big((\x_1,y_1),\ldots,(\x_m,y_m)\big)$.
\end{enumerate}
A natural first idea would be to sample densely from a sphere around
$\x_\textrm{b}$, but then the curse of dimensionality
\cite{HastieTibshiraniFriedman2009} would imply that the sample size $m$
would need to grow exponentially with $d$, so this is hopeless except
for very small $d$. Instead, we generate a sample that contains
variation in all the feature directions: for each feature
$j=1,\ldots,d$, we first create two vertices $\v_{j,-1}$ and $\v_{j,+1}$
that are equal to $\x_\textrm{b}$ except that they respectively decrease
and increase the value of feature $j$ by an amount~$\alpha$. We set
$\alpha = r \|\x_\textrm{b} - \x_0\|$ proportional to the distance between
$\x_\textrm{b}$ and $\x_0$ with a proportionality parameter $r > 0$ that is
specified below. Each point $(\x,y) \in S$ is then sampled independently
from the convex hull of the vertices $\v_{1,\pm 1},\ldots,\v_{d,\pm 1}$
by drawing random weights $w_{j,\pm 1}$ uniformly at random from the
$2d$-dimensional probability simplex, and setting $\x = \sum_{j=1}^d
w_{j,-1} \v_{j,-1} + \sum_{j=1}^d w_{j,+1} \v_{j,+1}$. We note that this
approach does not sample uniformly from the convex hull of the vertices,
but instead induces approximate sparsity in the samples, because the
influences of $\v_{j,-1}$ and $\v_{j,+1}$ approximately cancel each
other out when their weights $w_{j,-1}$ and $w_{j,+1}$ are similar. Our
use of (approximate) sparsity bears a resemblance to LIME \cite{LIME},
which samples sparse perturbations of $\x_0$.
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
  \item \emph{Explanation:} Fit a linear surrogate model $g(\x) =
  \x^\top \hat{\bbeta} + \hat{\beta}_0$ on the sample $S$ using (unpenalized)
  logistic regression.
\end{enumerate}
The parameters of the method are $k, m$ and $r$. We tune $r$
automatically from a grid $\mathcal{R}$ of possible values by choosing the
value for which the resulting direction $\hat{\bbeta}$ minimizes the
distance from $\x_0$ to the decision boundary.\footnote{The distance to
the decision boundary is again determined by the bisection method; this
time on the line segment between $\x_0$ and $\x' = \x_0 - f(\x_0)\gamma
\hat{\bbeta} /\|\hat{\bbeta}\|$, where we take $\gamma$ large enough that $\x'$
is always on the other side of the decision boundary. Specifically, we
use $\gamma = \|\x_0 - \x_\textrm{b}\| + 0.1$ in all our experiments.}
The output of the algorithm is the linear surrogate model $g$. Its most
important component is the coefficient vector $\hat{\bbeta}$, which is the
normal vector to the decision boundary of $g$ and can be interpreted as
the direction of minimal change to switch the class of $\x_0$, as
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:dba_toy}. See Appendix~\ref{app:dba} for
experiments illustrating the behavior of \textsc{DBA-Tab}{}.

\subsection{Extension to Structured High-dimensional Data}
\label{sec:dbafull}

\textsc{DBA-Tab}{} is not suitable for structured high-dimensional data like
images, because individual input pixels lack interpretability and
Euclidean distance between images is not meaningful. We therefore
provide an
extension
called \textsc{DBA-Att}{}, which stands for DBA with
attributes. \textsc{DBA-Att}{} measures distance in a latent representation
space $\mathcal{Z}$, which is learned by a VAE from the training
data~$D$. The user is further required to describe attributes that are
meaningful to them by providing additional data annotations. We use
these annotations to predict which attributes are present for any given
latent representation $\z \in \mathcal{Z}$. See
Figure~\ref{fig:attdba_scheme} for an overview of all the spaces and
mappings between them.

\paragraph{Learning the Latent Representation Space}

Variational autoencoders provide an unsupervised procedure to learn
(non-linear) mappings back and forth between inputs in $\mathcal{X}$ and
latent representations in $\mathcal{Z} \subset \mathbb{R}^l$. The
dimensionality $l$ of the latent space is taken to be much smaller than
the input dimension $d$, which forces a dimensionality reduction. VAEs
have the important property that the marginal distribution over the
latent space is approximately standard Gaussian, which means that
Euclidean distance is an appropriate metric in $\mathcal{Z}$. We do not
commit to any single choice of VAE, but allow the VAE to be customized
for the data under consideration. We further adjust the training
procedure of the VAE to favor preservation of class probabilities, which
can significantly improve the \emph{label stability}, i.e.\ $f(\x') =
f(\x)$, where $\x'$ is the reconstruction of $\x$ that is obtained by
mapping $\x$ to $\mathcal{Z}$ and back using the VAE. See
Appendix~\ref{app:dba} for details. Label stability for $\x_0$ is
crucial, because otherwise it is hopeless to use the VAE in any procedure
that tries to explain the decision boundary.

\paragraph{Predicting User-specified Attributes}

We assume the user provides annotations for $p$ attributes, where each
annotation $A_j = \big( (\x_1,y_1), \ldots, (\x_{n_j},y_{n_j})\big)$
consists of pairs of inputs $\x_i$ and binary labels $y_i \in \{-1,+1\}$
that indicate whether attribute $j$ is true or false. For example, an
attribute might indicate whether the person in an image is smiling or
not. The user may annotate (part of) the training data $D$, or provide
separate annotated data. For each annotation $A_j$, we first map the
inputs $\x_1,\ldots,\x_{n_j}$ to their latent representations
$\z_1,\ldots,\z_{n_j}$ using the VAE and then use $L_2$-penalized
logistic regression to train what we call an \emph{annotator} $a_j :
\mathcal{Z} \to [0,1]$, which predicts the probability that attribute
$j$ is true from the latent representation of an input. We denote the
coefficients of the logistic regression model for $a_j$ by $\hat{\btheta}_j
\in \mathbb{R}^l$ and its intercept by $\hat{\theta}_{0,j}$. Thus, we can go
from any input $\x \in \mathcal{X}$ to a latent representation $\z \in
\mathcal{Z}$ to a vector $\a = \big(a_1(\z),\ldots,a_p(\z)\big)$ of
attribute probabilities. We call the space that $\a$ lives in the
\emph{attribute space} $\mathcal{A} \subset [0,1]^p$.

\begin{remark}
In special cases our approach might be simplified: if the dimensions in
the VAE latent space are directly interpretable for the user, then we
can identify each attribute with a dimension of the latent space, and no
annotations are needed.
\end{remark}

\paragraph{The \textsc{DBA-Att}{} Method}

Our extended method \textsc{DBA-Att}{} differs from \textsc{DBA-Tab}{} as follows.
First, we map the point to be explained, $\x_0$, to its latent
representation $\z_0$. The detection step then runs in the latent space
$\mathcal{Z}$ instead of the input space $\mathcal{X}$ and detects a
point $\z_\textrm{b}$ on the decision boundary of $f$. Labels for any point
$\z \in \mathcal{Z}$ are obtained by mapping $\z \mapsto \x \mapsto
f(\x)$. Second, the simulation step also runs in $\mathcal{Z}$. Since
the coordinates of $\mathcal{Z}$ need not correspond directly to
interpretable features, we define the vertices in terms of the
user-specified attributes: $\v_{j,\pm 1} = \z_\textrm{b} \pm \alpha
\hat{\btheta}_j$ for $j = 1,\ldots,p$. The interpretation is that
$\hat{\btheta}_j$ represents the direction that increases the probability of
attribute~$j$ being true. Finally, in the explanation step we fit the
linear surrogate model in the attribute space, by mapping each sample
point $(\z_i,y_i)$ to $(\a_i,y_i)$ using the annotators. To make the
coefficients of the surrogate model comparable between attributes, we
standardize all attributes $a_{i,j}$ based on their mean and standard
deviation in the sample $S$.

\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}

To evaluate \textsc{DBA-Att}{} we design two controlled experiments in which
interpretable attributes are available and we know how the class labels
are assigned based on these attributes. In the first experiment we
generate our own artificial data set of flower images (AIris). In the
second experiment we use the CelebA data set \cite{celeba}, for which
attribute annotations are available. In
Appendix~\ref{app:dbasimpleexperiments} we further include experiments
with the \textsc{DBA-Tab}{} method on tabular data, including experiments on
standard UCI data sets in which \textsc{DBA-Tab}{} consistently outperforms
both LIME and MAPLE in terms of its ability to approximate the nearest
decision boundary region.

\subsection{AIris: Artificial Iris Data}
\label{sec:AIris}

Inspired by Anderson's classical Iris flower data set
\cite{Anderson1935}, which was made famous by Fisher \cite{Fisher1936},
we have created an image generation program that generates $128 \times
128$ RGB images of flowers based on 5 continuous parameters that all
have ranges inside $[0,1]$. See Appendix~\ref{app:airis} for examples
and further details. The first four parameters control the shape of the
flower. They are petal length (PL), petal width (PW), sepal length (SL)
and sepal width (SW). The last parameter, color (C), is a mixing
parameter that interpolates between red and magenta. We have used this
program to generate a training set $D$ of $4000$ flowers, as well as a
test set with $2000$ images. Each image was generated independently by
sampling the five parameters from the uniform distribution over their
range. We assign a flower to class~A if
\begin{equation}
     \begin{aligned}
       0.33\PL + 0.33\PW + 0.33\C &< 0.5 \quad \text{and}\\
       0.33\PL + 0.33\PW + 0.33\SL &> 0.4,
    \end{aligned}
\label{eqn:hyperplanes}
\end{equation}
and to class~B otherwise. This assignment defines a non-linear ground
truth consisting of two hyperplanes that are defined in terms of latent
parameters which are not available to the classifier~$f$. The
hyperplanes were chosen to achieve approximately balanced classes. We
further annotate the training data with binarized versions of the
parameters: for each parameter $\PL,\PW,\ldots,\C$ we define an attribute
that measures whether the parameter value is large or not. We set this
attribute to $+1$ if the parameter exceeds the midpoint of its range,
and to $-1$ otherwise. Thus the parameters are also not directly
available to the explanation methods. The appeal of the AIris data is
that it is sufficiently simple for a standard convolutional VAE to
learn good latent parameters, but sufficiently difficult to illustrate
the differences between existing explanation methods.

\subsubsection{Experiments and Results}

We train a 5-layer CNN $c : \mathcal{X} \to [0,1]$ on
the training data to learn the probability of class~A. The
corresponding binary classifications are: $f(\x) = +1$ if $c(\x) > 0.5$
and $f(\x) = -1$ otherwise. See Appendix~\ref{app:airis} for
details. The CNN achieves 99.33\% accuracy on the training data and
98.75\% accuracy on the test set, which is sufficiently high that, on
images from the same source, its decision boundary must be very similar
to the ground truth specified by the two hyperplanes. As described in
Appendix~\ref{app:airis}, we further train a convolutional VAE on the
training data. The VAE achieves 90\% label stability on the test set (up
from 74\% without our adjustment to favor preservation of class
probabilities). We compare \textsc{DBA-Att}{} to the CEM-MAF pertinent negative
method \cite{CEM-MAF}. We also want to compare to LIME, but since LIME
\cite{LIME} and ALIME \cite{ALIME} do not have the option to learn
user-specified attributes from annotations, we instead compare to a
hybrid method \textsc{LIME-Att}{}, which is a variant of \textsc{DBA-Att}{} in which we
have replaced the detection and simulation steps by LIME. We also
include a non-local baseline that we call the \textsc{Global}{} method.
\textsc{Global}{} is given an advantage because it gets as features the
original parameters ($\PL, \PW, \ldots, \C$) used to generate the
images, but it is also at a disadvantage because it fits a global linear
model in terms of these parameters, so it cannot exploit locality. We
run \textsc{DBA-Att}{} with $k = 1000,m = 500$ and $r$ tuned automatically from
grid $\mathcal{R} = \{0.1,0.2,\ldots,0.9,1,1.5,2,\ldots,9.5,10\}$. For
details about the other methods, see Appendix~\ref{app:airis}.
\textsc{DBA-Att}{}, \textsc{LIME-Att}{} and \textsc{Global}{} all output a coefficient
vector $\hat{\bbeta} \in \mathbb{R}^p$ that expresses the relative importance of
the attributes. This corresponds to a direction $\latentdirection =
\sum_{j=1}^p \hat{\beta}_j \hat{\btheta}_j$ in the latent space
$\mathcal{Z}$, where $\hat{\btheta}_j \in \mathbb{R}^l$ are the coefficients of
the annotator for attribute~$j$ (see Section~\ref{sec:dbafull}). CEM-MAF
outputs a contrastive example $\x_\textrm{c}$, but, as described in
Appendix~\ref{app:airis}, it may also be used to obtain a direction
$\latentdirection$ in the latent space and a vector of coefficients
$\hat{\bbeta}$ for the attributes.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{161samples-airis.pdf}
  \caption{Illustration of \textsc{DBA-Att}{} detection and sampling steps}
  \label{fig:samples_aires}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{A First Impression}

Before reporting aggregate statistics for multiple explanations, we
first illustrate our results on a single representative input image
$\x_0$.
Two other inputs illustrating best and worst performance for
\textsc{DBA-Att}{} are shown in Appendix~\ref{app:airis}.
Figure~\ref{fig:samples_aires} shows the input $\x_0$ in a red frame. It
further shows the closest decision boundary point $\x_\textrm{b}$ in a blue
frame, and in a green frame there is the corresponding bisected point
$\x_j$ from the detection step of the algorithm. The other images are
6~random samples from $S$ that were generated in the simulation step.
Appendix~\ref{app:airis} shows the principal component analysis (PCA)
projection of $S$ onto two dimensions. It can be seen there that the two
classes occur in roughly equal proportions, and can be separated quite
well with a linear decision boundary. The corresponding linear local
surrogate model $g$ is indeed highly faithful to $f$: its fidelity is
$99.7\%$ on $S$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.55\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{latent_path_comparison_161_final
        \caption{CNN probabilities moving in direction
        $\latentdirection/\|\latentdirection\|$ from $\x_0$}
        \label{fig:161_latentspace_airis}
    \end{subfigure
    \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.94\textwidth]{161barplot_airis}
        \caption{Explanation coefficients $\hat{\bbeta}$}
        \label{fig:161_coeffs_airis}
    \end{subfigure}
    \caption{Evaluation of explanation directions on the AIris
    test image from Figure~\ref{fig:samples_aires}}
    \label{fig:comparison_aIris}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:comparison_aIris} compares the quality of explanations
on a single test image. We see in Figure~\ref{fig:161_latentspace_airis}
that \textsc{DBA-Att}{} has found a direction that gets to the decision boundary
much faster than the other methods. Both figures in
Figure~\ref{fig:comparison_aIris} also show that the \textsc{DBA-Att}{}
direction is similar to the direction of the closest
hyperplane\footnote{\label{foot:hyperplane}For proper comparison, we
standardize each coefficient of the hyperplane by multiplying it by the
standard deviation of its corresponding parameter. See
Appendix~\ref{app:airis}.}, whereas the directions for the other methods
are different. We proceed to show that the behaviors observed in these
examples in fact hold generally.

\begin{table*}
  \caption{AIris evaluation statistics, averaged over $50$ test images}
  \label{tab:global_measures_airis}
  \centering
  \footnotesize
  \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
    \toprule
                    & DBA      & LIME           & Global    & Class           & Latent       & Cosine         & Cosine         \\
                    & Fidelity & $R^2$-Fidelity & Fidelity  & Balance         & Distance     & Similary-      & Similarity+   \\
  \midrule
 \textsc{DBA-Att}{}         &  97.0\%  & -              &    -      & \textbf{50.2\%} & \textbf{0.6} & 0.858 & \textbf{0.925} \\
 \textsc{LIME-Att}{}        &        - & 21.7\%         &    -      & 47.7\%          & 1.0          &  0.570        & 0.719 \\
 CEM-MAF            &     -    &   -            &    -      &    -            & 1.0          &  0.458        & 0.640\\
 \textsc{Global}{} & -        & -              &  73.6\%   & 47.4\%          & 1.8          & 0.403          & 0.454\\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\paragraph{Aggregate Evaluation}

All methods are evaluated on the same set of $50$ randomly selected
images $\x_0$ from the test data on which the VAE achieves label
stability. (See Section~\ref{sec:dbafull} for a discussion on label
stability.) In Table~\ref{tab:global_measures_airis} we report the means
of the following statistics. First, fidelity measures how well the
surrogate models approximate the original classifier $f$. Unfortunately,
there is no single measure of fidelity, because the methods generate
different samples in different regions of the input space, and it does
not make sense to evaluate how well one method fits a sample generated
by another method. For \textsc{DBA-Att}{} we therefore measure ``DBA Fidelity''
by the classification accuracy of the surrogate in predicting the labels
of $f$ on the local sample $S$ generated by \textsc{DBA-Att}{}; for ``LIME
Fidelity'' we use the local Weighted Regression $R^2$ measure proposed
by the LIME authors on the \textsc{LIME-Att}{} sample \cite{ALIME}; and for
\textsc{Global}{} we measure ``Global Fidelity'' by its classification
accuracy on all the training data. Since CEM-MAF does not directly
produce a surrogate model, we do not measure its fidelity. Second, we
measure the class balance of the samples produced by \textsc{DBA-Att}{} and
\textsc{LIME-Att}{} by the percentage of sample points labeled as $+1$ by $f$.
For \textsc{Global}{} we report the class balance of all the training
data. Third, we measure the ``Latent Distance'' from $\z_0$ to the
decision boundary in the latent space along the direction
$\latentdirection$. Finally, we include two measures that capture the
cosine similarity between $\hat{\bbeta}$ and the coefficients of the true
hyperplanes in \eqref{eqn:hyperplanes}.\cref{foot:hyperplane} The
difference is that ``Cosine Similarity-'' measures similarity with the
closest of the two hyperplanes and ``Cosine Similarity+'' measures the
maximum of the similarities with the two hyperplanes.

\paragraph{Aggregate Results}

For \textsc{DBA-Att}{} fidelity is high, while fidelity is low for \textsc{LIME-Att}{}:
its local surrogate model is only able to explain $21.7\%$ of the
variance in the class probabilities of the CNN $c$. We further see that
class balance is good (close to $50\%$) for all methods. From Latent
Distance we see that \textsc{DBA-Att}{} is much better at identifying the
nearest decision boundary direction than \textsc{LIME-Att}{} and CEM-MAF, which
perform equally well. \textsc{Global}{} is worse still, showing that
local explanations are much more informative than a single global
explanation. Finally, we see from Cosine Similarity+ that \textsc{DBA-Att}{}
recovers the coefficients of one of the hyperplanes extremely well: the
similarity is close to its maximum value $1$. The other methods are
significantly worse. The gap between the two Cosine Similarities for all
methods indicates that the methods do not necessarily focus on the
closest hyperplane. This can be explained by the fact that, for a subset
of data points from class B, the closest hyperplane does not switch the
class.

\subsection{CelebA: Annotated Celebrity Image Data}
\label{sec:celeba}

\begin{table}[htbp]
    \centering
    \caption{CelebA evaluation statistics, averaged over $30$ test
  images\label{tab:global_measures_celeba}}
      \begin{tabular}{lllll}
     \toprule
     & DBA      & LIME           & Class   & Latent   \\
     & Fidelity & $R^2$-Fidelity & Balance & Distance \\
   \midrule
    \textsc{DBA-Att}{}  &  97.3\% & -   &  \textbf{50.1\%} & \textbf{2.0} \\
    \textsc{LIME-Att}{} &   -  & 32.7\% &  47.2\%     & 2.1 \\
    CEM-MAF     &   -  & -   &             - & 2.7 \\
     \bottomrule

   \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{barplot_celeb_aggr_last2}
  \caption{Mean explanation coefficients for CelebA} \label{fig:avgcoeffCelebA}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.38\textwidth}
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=0.76\textwidth]{24samples}
     \caption{Illustration of detection and sampling steps for
     \textsc{DBA-Att}{}}\label{fig:24samples}
  \end{subfigure
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{barplot_celeb_24_lastt.pdf}
    \caption{Explanation coefficients}
  \end{subfigure
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.30\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.94\textwidth]{latent_path_comparison_24cel_final.pdf}
    \caption{CNN probabilities as we move in direction
    $\latentdirection/\|\latentdirection\|$ from $\x_0$}
    \label{fig:24path}
  \end{subfigure
  \caption{Explanations of the single image shown in the top-left corner
  of Figure~\ref{fig:24samples}}\label{fig:example24}
\end{figure}

CelebA is a large image data set of 202\,599 celebrity faces, annotated
with 40 binary attributes~\cite{celeba}. We restrict attention to 9 attributes: MALE, SMILE, BANGS, PALE, OPEN MOUTH, YOUNG, BLOND, MAKE-UP
and BLURRY, and define two classes: A) SMILE and not MALE $\approx$
smiling females vs B) other. Class A was chosen because it is one of the
few combinations of two attributes that gives approximately balanced
classes. We split the data into $n=162\,079$ training images (80\%) and
40\,520 test images (20\%). A CNN is trained with 93.2\% training
accuracy and 91.5\% testing accuracy. We further train a VAE based on
\citet{DFCVAE}, which gives 91\% label stability. For the
explanation methods, we only use the annotations from 9\,000 randomly
selected images from the training data, and we explain 30 random images
from the test set on which the VAE achieves label stability using
\textsc{DBA-Att}{}, \textsc{LIME-Att}{} and CEM-MAF. See
Appendix~\ref{app:CelebAdetails} for further details.

\subsubsection{Experiments and Results}

In Table~\ref{tab:global_measures_celeba} we report the same aggregate
statistics as for the AIris data, except for the ones that require
knowledge of the true data generating mechanism. We see that \textsc{DBA-Att}{}
and \textsc{LIME-Att}{} are approximately equally good in terms of distance to
the decision boundary, which suggests that for this data the local CNN
probabilities increase more or less orthogonally from the decision
boundary. In this case, CEM-MAF is significantly worse at indicating the
direction of the nearest decision boundary. A possible explanation why
the low $R^2$-fidelity of \textsc{LIME-Att}{} does not prevent it from achieving
small Latent Distance is that its surrogate model might approximate the
decision boundary reasonably well even if it cannot approximate the CNN
probabilities very precisely.

In Figure~\ref{fig:avgcoeffCelebA} we further show the mean
coefficient values for the three methods. Both \textsc{DBA-Att}{} and \textsc{LIME-Att}{} detect
the importance of MALE and SMILE, and further show that the CNN is
improperly sensitive to OPEN MOUTH and BLURRY. The effect of blurriness
is particularly interesting because it cannot be expressed by
highlighting the most important pixels, which is a common approach in
explainability \cite{SelvarajuEtAl2017GradCam,LIME}. CEM-MAF
disqualifies itself because it gives the wrong dependence on the MALE
attribute.

Zooming in on a single image, Figure~\ref{fig:example24} shows a very
similar pattern to the aggregate explanations, with perhaps increased
importance of SMILE and OPEN MOUTH.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:discussion}

We have introduced the AIris data set as a new high-dimensional
benchmark for local explanations that focus on the decision boundary.
The importance of AIris is that the ground truth is known, so we can
directly evaluate how good different methods are at recovering it. Our
general non-tabular method \textsc{DBA-Att}{} produces explanations that better
identify the nearest decision boundary region than both \textsc{LIME-Att}{} and
CEM-MAF for both the AIris and the CelebA data.
Appendix~\ref{app:tabularUCI} further shows that \textsc{DBA-Tab}{}, the basic
version of our method, consistently outperforms LIME and MAPLE on
tabular data in terms of distance to the decision boundary.

Our DBA procedures fit a local linear surrogate model to the nearest
decision boundary point. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:dba_toy}, the
coefficients $\hat{\bbeta}$ of this model may be interpreted as a vector
pointing towards the nearest boundary point. For users who would prefer
a contrastive explanation in terms of data point $\x_\textrm{c}$ sampled
from the opposite class compared to $\x_0$, it would be possible to
provide such a contrastive explanation by moving along the vector
$\hat{\bbeta}$ until we cross the decision boundary, and then sampling
$\x_\textrm{c}$ there.

Our approach requires a successfully trained VAE and sufficiently
expressive attributes: a linear model in terms of the attributes, which
corresponds to a linear model in a subspace of the latent space of the
VAE, must be able to locally approximate the decision boundary of the
classifier $f$ with high fidelity. A less obvious point of attention is
that user annotations are not always univocal: if a user annotates a
data set in which all men have short hair and all women have long hair,
then the corresponding attribute MALE will not just correspond to gender
but also to hair length. This is the problem of \emph{entangled} latent
representations, which recent work on VAEs is starting to address
\cite{pmlr-v97-mathieu19a,NIPS2019_9603,locatello2019disentangling}.

\small
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}