Counterfactuals and Causability in Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications

There has been a growing interest in model-agnostic methods that can make deep learning models more transparent and explainable to a user. Some researchers recently argued that for a machine to achieve a certain degree of human-level explainability, this machine needs to provide human causally understandable explanations, also known as causability. A specific class of algorithms that have the potential to provide causability are counterfactuals. This paper presents an in-depth systematic review of the diverse existing body of literature on counterfactuals and causability for explainable artificial intelligence. We performed an LDA topic modelling analysis under a PRISMA framework to find the most relevant literature articles. This analysis resulted in a novel taxonomy that considers the grounding theories of the surveyed algorithms, together with their underlying properties and applications in real-world data. This research suggests that current model-agnostic counterfactual algorithms for explainable AI are not grounded on a causal theoretical formalism and, consequently, cannot promote causability to a human decision-maker. Our findings suggest that the explanations derived from major algorithms in the literature provide spurious correlations rather than cause/effects relationships, leading to sub-optimal, erroneous or even biased explanations. This paper also advances the literature with new directions and challenges on promoting causability in model-agnostic approaches for explainable artificial intelligence

Flexible and Robust Counterfactual Explanations with Minimal Satisfiable Perturbations

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) exemplify how to minimally modify a feature vector to achieve a different prediction for an instance. CFEs can enhance informational fairness and trustworthiness, and provide suggestions for users who receive adverse predictions. However, recent research has shown that multiple CFEs can be offered for the same instance or instances with slight differences. Multiple CFEs provide flexible choices and cover diverse desiderata for user selection. However, individual fairness and model reliability will be damaged if unstable CFEs with different costs are returned. Existing methods fail to exploit flexibility and address the concerns of non-robustness simultaneously. To address these issues, we propose a conceptually simple yet effective solution named Counterfactual Explanations with Minimal Satisfiable Perturbations (CEMSP). Specifically, CEMSP constrains changing values of abnormal features with the help of their semantically meaningful normal ranges. For efficiency, we model the problem as a Boolean satisfiability problem to modify as few features as possible. Additionally, CEMSP is a general framework and can easily accommodate more practical requirements, e.g., casualty and actionability. Compared to existing methods, we conduct comprehensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets to demonstrate that our method provides more robust explanations while preserving flexibility.Comment: Accepted by CIKM 202

An empirical study on how humans appreciate automated counterfactual explanations which embrace imprecise information

The explanatory capacity of interpretable fuzzy rule-based classifiers is usually limited to offering explanations for the predicted class only. A lack of potentially useful explanations for non-predicted alternatives can be overcome by designing methods for the so-called counterfactual reasoning. Nevertheless, state-of-the-art methods for counterfactual explanation generation require special attention to human evaluation aspects, as the final decision upon the classification under consideration is left for the end user. In this paper, we first introduce novel methods for qualitative and quantitative counterfactual explanation generation. Then, we carry out a comparative analysis of qualitative explanation generation methods operating on (combinations of) linguistic terms as well as a quantitative method suggesting precise changes in feature values. Then, we propose a new metric for assessing the perceived complexity of the generated explanations. Further, we design and carry out two human evaluation experiments to assess the explanatory power of the aforementioned methods. As a major result, we show that the estimated explanation complexity correlates well with the informativeness, relevance, and readability of explanations perceived by the targeted study participants. This fact opens the door to using the new automatic complexity metric for guiding multi-objective evolutionary explainable fuzzy modeling in the near futureIlia Stepin is an FPI researcher (grant PRE2019-090153). Jose M. Alonso-Moral is a Ramon y Cajal researcher (grant RYC-2016–19802). This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (grants RTI2018-099646-B-I00, PID2021-123152OB-C21, and TED2021-130295B-C33) and the Galician Ministry of Culture, Education, Professional Training and University (grants ED431F2018/02, ED431G2019/04, and ED431C2022/19). All the grants were co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER program).S

On the Generation of Realistic and Robust Counterfactual Explanations for Algorithmic Recourse

This recent widespread deployment of machine learning algorithms presents many new challenges. Machine learning algorithms are usually opaque and can be particularly difficult to interpret. When humans are involved, algorithmic and automated decisions can negatively impact people’s lives. Therefore, end users would like to be insured against potential harm. One popular way to achieve this is to provide end users access to algorithmic recourse, which gives end users negatively affected by algorithmic decisions the opportunity to reverse unfavorable decisions, e.g., from a loan denial to a loan acceptance. In this thesis, we design recourse algorithms to meet various end user needs. First, we propose methods for the generation of realistic recourses. We use generative models to suggest recourses likely to occur under the data distribution. To this end, we shift the recourse action from the input space to the generative model’s latent space, allowing to generate counterfactuals that lie in regions with data support. Second, we observe that small changes applied to the recourses prescribed to end users likely invalidate the suggested recourse after being nosily implemented in practice. Motivated by this observation, we design methods for the generation of robust recourses and for assessing the robustness of recourse algorithms to data deletion requests. Third, the lack of a commonly used code-base for counterfactual explanation and algorithmic recourse algorithms and the vast array of evaluation measures in literature make it difficult to compare the per formance of different algorithms. To solve this problem, we provide an open source benchmarking library that streamlines the evaluation process and can be used for benchmarking, rapidly developing new methods, and setting up new experiments. In summary, our work contributes to a more reliable interaction of end users and machine learned models by covering fundamental aspects of the recourse process and suggests new solutions towards generating realistic and robust counterfactual explanations for algorithmic recourse