Counterfactual Explanations for Data-Driven Decisions

Users’ lack of understanding of systems that use predictive models to make automated decisions is one of the main barriers for their adoption. We adopt the increasingly accepted view of a counterfactual explanation for a system decision: a set of the system inputs that is causal (meaning that removing them changes the decision) and irreducible (meaning that removing any subset of the inputs in the explanation does not change the decision). We generalize previous work on counterfactual explanations in three ways: we explain system decisions rather than model predictions; we do not enforce any specific method for removing inputs, and our explanations can incorporate inputs with arbitrary data structures. We also show how model-agnostic algorithms can be tweaked to find the most useful explanations depending on the context. Finally, we showcase our approach using a real data set to illustrate its advantages over other explanation methods when the goal is to understand system decisions better

Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach

We examine counterfactual explanations for explaining the decisions made by model-based AI systems. The counterfactual approach we consider defines an explanation as a set of the system's data inputs that causally drives the decision (i.e., changing the inputs in the set changes the decision) and is irreducible (i.e., changing any subset of the inputs does not change the decision). We (1) demonstrate how this framework may be used to provide explanations for decisions made by general, data-driven AI systems that may incorporate features with arbitrary data types and multiple predictive models, and (2) propose a heuristic procedure to find the most useful explanations depending on the context. We then contrast counterfactual explanations with methods that explain model predictions by weighting features according to their importance (e.g., SHAP, LIME) and present two fundamental reasons why we should carefully consider whether importance-weight explanations are well-suited to explain system decisions. Specifically, we show that (i) features that have a large importance weight for a model prediction may not affect the corresponding decision, and (ii) importance weights are insufficient to communicate whether and how features influence decisions. We demonstrate this with several concise examples and three detailed case studies that compare the counterfactual approach with SHAP to illustrate various conditions under which counterfactual explanations explain data-driven decisions better than importance weights

Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behavior

As data-driven predictive models are increasingly used to inform decisions, it has been argued that decision makers should provide explanations that help individuals understand what would have to change for these decisions to be beneficial ones. However, there has been little discussion on the possibility that individuals may use the above counterfactual explanations to invest effort strategically and maximize their chances of receiving a beneficial decision. In this paper, our goal is to find policies and counterfactual explanations that are optimal in terms of utility in such a strategic setting. We first show that, given a pre-defined policy, the problem of finding the optimal set of counterfactual explanations is NP-hard. Then, we show that the corresponding objective is nondecreasing and satisfies submodularity and this allows a standard greedy algorithm to enjoy approximation guarantees. In addition, we further show that the problem of jointly finding both the optimal policy and set of counterfactual explanations reduces to maximizing a non-monotone submodular function. As a result, we can use a recent randomized algorithm to solve the problem, which also offers approximation guarantees. Finally, we demonstrate that, by incorporating a matroid constraint into the problem formulation, we can increase the diversity of the optimal set of counterfactual explanations and incentivize individuals across the whole spectrum of the population to self improve. Experiments on synthetic and real lending and credit card data illustrate our theoretical findings and show that the counterfactual explanations and decision policies found by our algorithms achieve higher utility than several competitive baselines.Comment: New data preprocessing method, experiments on credit card data and experiments under a matroid constrain

LIMEtree: Interactively Customisable Explanations Based on Local Surrogate Multi-output Regression Trees

Systems based on artificial intelligence and machine learning models should be transparent, in the sense of being capable of explaining their decisions to gain humans' approval and trust. While there are a number of explainability techniques that can be used to this end, many of them are only capable of outputting a single one-size-fits-all explanation that simply cannot address all of the explainees' diverse needs. In this work we introduce a model-agnostic and post-hoc local explainability technique for black-box predictions called LIMEtree, which employs surrogate multi-output regression trees. We validate our algorithm on a deep neural network trained for object detection in images and compare it against Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME). Our method comes with local fidelity guarantees and can produce a range of diverse explanation types, including contrastive and counterfactual explanations praised in the literature. Some of these explanations can be interactively personalised to create bespoke, meaningful and actionable insights into the model's behaviour. While other methods may give an illusion of customisability by wrapping, otherwise static, explanations in an interactive interface, our explanations are truly interactive, in the sense of allowing the user to "interrogate" a black-box model. LIMEtree can therefore produce consistent explanations on which an interactive exploratory process can be built

The Repurchase Behavior of Individual Investors: An Experimental Investigation

We analyze two recently documented follow-on purchase and repurchase patterns experimentally: Individual investors’ preference for purchasing additional shares of a stock that decreased rather than increased in value succeeding an initial purchase (pattern 1) and investors’ tendency for purchasing stocks that they previously sold at a higher price (pattern 2). Similar to the field data study by Odean, Strahilevitz, and Barber (2004), subjects in our experiment are about 2.5 to 3 times as likely to purchase units of a single fictitious good if the price of the good declined following a purchase or sale in the previous period. As an assignment of choices clearly reduces the effect, we ar-gue that investors are involved in counterfactual thinking: They refrain from purchasing additional shares or repurchasing shares at a higher price because doing so means admitting to their ex post wrong decision.

Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR

There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function. Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued, explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box. Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the system

Axiomatic Characterization of Data-Driven Influence Measures for Classification

We study the following problem: given a labeled dataset and a specific datapoint x, how did the i-th feature influence the classification for x? We identify a family of numerical influence measures - functions that, given a datapoint x, assign a numeric value phi_i(x) to every feature i, corresponding to how altering i's value would influence the outcome for x. This family, which we term monotone influence measures (MIM), is uniquely derived from a set of desirable properties, or axioms. The MIM family constitutes a provably sound methodology for measuring feature influence in classification domains; the values generated by MIM are based on the dataset alone, and do not make any queries to the classifier. While this requirement naturally limits the scope of our framework, we demonstrate its effectiveness on data