Cited by 302Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Counterfactuals and causability in explainable artificial intelligence: Theory, algorithms, and applications

Open access
Chou, Yu-Liang, Moreira, Catarina, Bruza, Peter, Ouyang, Chun, Jorge, Joaquim·2022·Information Fusion

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.003

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Exposing a diagnostic system to contradictory examples where the same symptoms can indicate different diseases can help it evaluate multiple possibilities and make a more accurate diagnosis.

    “Additionally, by exposing the system to contradictory examples where the same symptoms can indicate different diseases, the system can learn to evaluate multiple possibilities and make a more accurate diagnosis [91].”

    From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [91]

    Section 7 (p. 39) discusses counterfactual explanations in medical decision support, and Section 8.1 (p. 42) discusses questions a clinician might ask about a patient's fever. Neither says that exposing a diagnostic system to examples in which the same symptoms indicate different diseases helps it consider alternatives or improve diagnostic accuracy. Searches for contradictory symptom examples and diagnostic accuracy found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 163 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [12][12] C. Moreira, B. Martins, P . Calado Using rank aggregation for expert search in academic digital libraries, in: Simp´ osio de Inform´ atica, INForum, 2011, pp. 1-10. -
  2. [13][13] C. Moreira, Learning to rank academic experts, Master Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon, 2011. -
  3. [54][54] D. Lewis, Causation, Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973) 113-126. -
  4. [65][65] M. Stiffler, A. Hudler, E. Lee, D. Braines, D. Mott, D. Harborne, An analysis of the reliability of lime with deep learning models, in: Proceedings of the Dstributed Analytics and Information Science International Technology Alliance, 2018. -
  5. [70][70] A. Preece, Asking 'why' in ai: Explainability of intelligent systems - perspectives and challenges, International journal of intelligent systems in accounting, finance & management 25 (2018) 63-72. -
  6. [91][91] D. Lewis, Counterfactuals, Oxford: Blackwell, 1973. -
  7. [105][105] M. T. Lash, Q. Lin, N. Street, J. G. Robinson, J. Ohlmann, Generalized inverse classification, Proceedings of the 2017 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics International Conference on Data Mining (2017) 162-170. -
  8. [107][107] S. Sharma, J. Henderson, J. Ghosh, Certifai: Counterfactual explanations for robustness, transparency, interpretability, and fairness of artificial intelligence models, arxiv: 1905.07857 (2019). - · arXiv
  9. [113][113] M. Pawelczyk, J. Haug, K. Broelemann, G. Kasneci, Towards user empowerment, in: Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Workshop on Human-Centric Machine Learning, 2019. -
  10. [116][116] M. Downs, J. L. Chu, Y. Yacoby, F. Doshi-Velez, W. Pan, Cruds: Counterfactual recourse using disentangled subspaces, ICML WHI 2020 (2020) 1-23. -
  11. [121][121] A. V. Looveren, J. Klaise, Interpretable counterfactual explanations guided by prototypes, arxiv: 1907.02584 (2019). - · arXiv
  12. [136][136] Y. Ramon, D. Martens, F. Provost, T. Evgeniou, Counterfactual explanation algorithms for behavioral and textual data, 2019. arXiv:1912.01819 . - · arXiv
  13. [163][163] M. N. Hoque, K. Mueller, Outcome-explorer: A causality guided interactive visual interface for interpretable algorithmic decision making, 2021. arXiv:2101.00633 . - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chou, Y.-L., Moreira, C., Bruza, P., Ouyang, C., & Jorge, J.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores Investigação e Desenvolvimento (PT)
Corresponding author
Moreira, Catarina
Venue
Information Fusion
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
81
Pages
59-83
ISSN
1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3214404698
Cited by
302
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 7
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Fusion (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB/50021/2020)
  • Queensland University of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
counterfactual explanations, causality, explainable AI, model-agnostic explainability, deep learning interpretability, spurious correlations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review