Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations
Open accessAbstract
Post-hoc explanations of machine learning models are crucial for people to understand and act on algorithmic predictions. An intriguing class of explanations is through counterfactuals, hypothetical examples that show people how to obtain a different prediction. We posit that effective counterfactual explanations should satisfy two properties: feasibility of the counterfactual actions given user context and constraints, and diversity among the counterfactuals presented. To this end, we propose a framework for generating and evaluating a diverse set of counterfactual explanations based on determinantal point processes. To evaluate the actionability of counterfactuals, we provide metrics that enable comparison of counterfactual-based methods to other local explanation methods. We further address necessary tradeoffs and point to causal implications in optimizing for counterfactuals. Our experiments on four real-world datasets show that our framework can generate a set of counterfactuals that are diverse and well approximate local decision boundaries, outperforming prior approaches to generating diverse counterfactuals. We provide an implementation of the framework at https://github.com/microsoft/DiCE.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Counterfactuals are expected to have psychological benefits because they help people act, rather than merely understand, by altering future behavior to achieve a desired outcome.
“They are expected to have psychological benefits because they help people act, rather than merely understand, by altering future behavior to achieve a desired outcome (Wachter et al., 2018; Mothilal et al., 2020).”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Mothilal et al., 2020
The Introduction says counterfactual explanations can show people what to do to obtain a better outcome in the future, rather than merely explain a bad outcome. It does not claim psychological benefits or show that people actually alter their future behavior. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 1,233
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [23]23. Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfac- tual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4066-4076.
- [31]31. Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality. Cambridge university press.
- Authors
- Mothilal, R. K., Sharma, A., & Tan, C.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Pages
- 607-617
- OpenAlex
- W2945295328
- Semantic Scholar
- c2413fa296543159b32d16350d9e29f7db528790
- Cited by
- 1,233
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 208 · 2025: 248 · 2024: 218 · 2023: 219 · 2022: 152 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 52.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- NSF (IIS-1927322)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- counterfactual explanations, explanation diversity, determinantal point processes, post-hoc explanation, dice
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