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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 152 of the 163 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 163 references

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Lipton, 2018, The mythos of model interpretability, Communications ACM, 61, 36, 10.1145/3233231 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Downs, 2020, Cruds: Counterfactual recourse using disentangled subspaces, ICML WHI, 2020, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 283

Metadata

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
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