Cited by 122Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

On generating trustworthy counterfactual explanations

Open access
Del Ser, Javier, Barredo-Arrieta, Alejandro, Díaz-Rodríguez, Natalia, Herrera, Francisco, Saranti, Anna, Holzinger, Andreas·2024·Information Sciences

Abstract

Deep learning models like chatGPT exemplify AI success but necessitate a deeper understanding of trust in critical sectors. Trust can be achieved using counterfactual explanations, which is how humans become familiar with unknown processes; by understanding the hypothetical input circumstances under which the output changes. We argue that the generation of counterfactual explanations requires several aspects of the generated counterfactual instances, not just their counterfactual ability. We present a framework for generating counterfactual explanations that formulate its goal as a multiobjective optimization problem balancing three objectives: plausibility; the intensity of changes; and adversarial power. We use a generative adversarial network to model the distribution of the input, along with a multiobjective counterfactual discovery solver balancing these objectives. We demonstrate the usefulness of six classification tasks with image and 3D data confirming with evidence the existence of a trade-off between the objectives, the consistency of the produced counterfactual explanations with human knowledge, and the capability of the framework to unveil the existence of concept-based biases and misrepresented attributes in the input domain of the audited model. Our pioneering effort shall inspire further work on the generation of plausible counterfactual explanations in real-world scenarios where attribute-/concept-based annotations are available for the domain under analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ins.2023.119898

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The study by Del Ser et al. demonstrates across six classification tasks using image and 3D data evidence of trade-offs between objectives and consistency of the generated explanations with human understanding, and the framework's ability to reveal concept-based biases and misrepresented attributes within the model's input domain.

    “The study demonstrates across six classification tasks using image and 3D data confirm evidence of trade-offs between objectives and consistency of the generated explanations with human understanding, and the framework's ability to reveal concept-based biases and misrepresented attributes within the model's input domain.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Del Ser, J., Barredo-Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Herrera, F., Saranti, A., & Holzinger, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
Corresponding author
Holzinger, Andreas
Venue
Information Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
655
Pages
119898
ISSN
0020-0255 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388767362
Cited by
122
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 51
FWCI
11.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TECNALIA Publications (Fundación TECNALIA Research & Innovation) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • European Commission (CER-20211030)
  • Horizon 2020 (826078)
  • Austrian Science Fund (P-32554)
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (101059332)
  • Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (IT1256-22)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
counterfactual explanations, trustworthy AI, multi-objective optimization, generative adversarial networks, plausibility, explainable deep learning, image classification

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