Cited by 1,233Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations

Open access
Mothilal, Ramaravind K., Sharma, Amit, Tan, Chenhao·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3351095.3372850

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.

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?

  • 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

  1. [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.
  2. [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
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
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