Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
80 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Promoting Counterfactual Robustness through Diversity (2312.06564v2)

Published 11 Dec 2023 in cs.LG and cs.AI

Abstract: Counterfactual explanations shed light on the decisions of black-box models by explaining how an input can be altered to obtain a favourable decision from the model (e.g., when a loan application has been rejected). However, as noted recently, counterfactual explainers may lack robustness in the sense that a minor change in the input can cause a major change in the explanation. This can cause confusion on the user side and open the door for adversarial attacks. In this paper, we study some sources of non-robustness. While there are fundamental reasons for why an explainer that returns a single counterfactual cannot be robust in all instances, we show that some interesting robustness guarantees can be given by reporting multiple rather than a single counterfactual. Unfortunately, the number of counterfactuals that need to be reported for the theoretical guarantees to hold can be prohibitively large. We therefore propose an approximation algorithm that uses a diversity criterion to select a feasible number of most relevant explanations and study its robustness empirically. Our experiments indicate that our method improves the state-of-the-art in generating robust explanations, while maintaining other desirable properties and providing competitive computational performance.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (26)
  1. Consistent Counterfactuals for Deep Models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR’22). OpenReview.net.
  2. UCI Machine Learning Repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
  3. Robust Counterfactual Explanations for Tree-Based Ensembles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’22), volume 162, 5742–5756. PMLR.
  4. Online News Popularity. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5NS3V.
  5. FICO Community. 2019. Explainable Machine Learning Challenge. https://community.fico.com/s/explainable-machine-learning-challenge.
  6. Attribution-based Explanations that Provide Recourse Cannot be Robust. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15834.
  7. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Comput. Surv., 51(5): 93:1–93:42.
  8. Hancox-Li, L. 2020. Robustness in machine learning explanations: does it matter? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*’20), 640–647. ACM.
  9. Spambase. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C53G6X.
  10. Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks. In Procedings of the 37th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’23), 14901–14909. AAAI Press.
  11. Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS’20), 895–905.
  12. A Survey of Algorithmic Recourse: Contrastive Explanations and Consequential Recommendations. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(5): 95:1–95:29.
  13. Counterfactual Explanations and Model Multiplicity: a Relational Verification View. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’23), 763–768.
  14. Towards Robust Contrastive Explanations for Human-Neural Multi-Agent Systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’23), 2343–2345.
  15. Scaling Guarantees for Nearest Counterfactual Explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES’21 )., 177–187. ACM.
  16. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*’20)., 607–617.
  17. On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’20), volume 124 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 809–818. AUAI Press.
  18. Probabilistically Robust Recourse: Navigating the Trade-offs between Costs and Robustness in Algorithmic Recourse. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations, (ICLR’23). OpenReview.net.
  19. ProPublica. 2016. How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm . https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm.
  20. Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS’21), 62–75.
  21. Using the ADAP learning algorithm to forecast the onset of diabetes mellitus. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer application in medical care, 261. American Medical Informatics Association.
  22. A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Access, 9: 11974–12001.
  23. Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS’21), 16926–16937.
  24. Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypes. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD’21), 650–665.
  25. OpenML: networked science in machine learning. SIGKDD Explor., 15(2): 49–60.
  26. Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harv. JL & Tech., 31: 841.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Francesco Leofante (16 papers)
  2. Nico Potyka (27 papers)
Citations (5)