Modifications of the Miller definition of contrastive (counterfactual) explanations

Miller recently proposed a definition of contrastive (counterfactual) explanations based on the well-known Halpern-Pearl (HP) definitions of causes and (non-contrastive) explanations. Crucially, the Miller definition was based on the original HP definition of explanations, but this has since been modified by Halpern; presumably because the original yields counterintuitive results in many standard examples. More recently Borner has proposed a third definition, observing that this modified HP definition may also yield counterintuitive results. In this paper we show that the Miller definition inherits issues found in the original HP definition. We address these issues by proposing two improved variants based on the more robust modified HP and Borner definitions. We analyse our new definitions and show that they retain the spirit of the Miller definition where all three variants satisfy an alternative unified definition that is modular with respect to an underlying definition of non-contrastive explanations. To the best of our knowledge this paper also provides the first explicit comparison between the original and modified HP definitions.Comment: Accepted by ECSQARU'2

A Delicate Balancing Act: Negotiating with Gatekeepers for Ethical Research When Researching Minority Communities

Research and processes of knowledge production are often based on racialised and imperialistic frameworks that have led to either the exclusion or the pathologisation of minority groups. Researchers address issues of exclusion by adopting recruitment strategies that involve negotiating with gatekeepers to ensure the inclusion of minority or marginalised groups. This often involves in-depth scrutiny of gatekeepers and requires the researchers to negotiate deals and to make personal disclosures. However, there remains relatively little discussion on the pragmatic ethical issues facing researchers in the field as a result of these interactions. This article suggests that interactions with gatekeepers present ethical issues that can be effectively addressed and managed by researchers through the exercise of phronesis. Phronesis allows researchers to make critical ethical decisions based on the specific characteristics of the research sites and subjects, not least of which are those issues that emerge as a consequence of researcher positionality. Such decisions are not necessarily identified or accommodated through bureaucratic processes which govern research ethics. We advance the notion of research ethics as an ongoing process that requires researcher skills and engagement, rather than a one-off bureaucratic exercise