A Counterfactual Theory of Causal Explanation
Abstract
We commonly explain certain occurrences in the natural world, on the basis of a shared stock of information available to the non-specialised layman as well as to the natural scientist. That shared stock of information is our folk physics. The snow melted because spring had finally come; the car was wrecked because it was hit by a bus; the match lit because it was struck. Such explanations are, or appear to be, causal explanations. Many of our other folk explanations may be noncausal explanations, but I consider only the former sort. I assume, following Davidson, that laws are strict, i.e., exceptionless. If it is a deterministic law that Fs are Gs, then every F without exception must be a G. If it is a stochastic law that Pr(G, F)=p, where O<p<1, then, for any finite sample, s, it may well be that the proportion of Fs in s which are Gs may not be exactly p. However, as one examines Fs indefinitely, the proportion which are found to be Gs will tend to p, and in the limit, the proportion of Fs which are Gs will be
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 outlined classification-oriented frameworks are evaluated on classifiers based on logistic regression, decision trees, gradient boosted decision trees, support vector machines, random forests, neural networks, or combinations of these.
“Thus, the outlined classification-oriented frameworks are evaluated on classifiers based on logistic regression [55], [136], [153], [158], decision trees [46], [80], [122], [140], [150], [155], [159], gradient boosted decision trees [147], support vector machines [131], [138], [146], random forests [81], [86], [142]-[144], neural networks [6], [48], [49], [91], [129], [130], [133], [135], [139], [”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
In order to guarantee the coherence of the counterfactual data example used for explanation, Russell et al. propose an integer programming-based method [153].
“In order to guarantee the coherence of the counterfactual data example used for explanation, an integer programming-based method is proposed.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Russell et al.'s framework [153] is limited to: (1) explaining predictions of only linear classifiers and (2) a simple structure of the textual explanation template.
“However, this framework is limited to: (1) explaining predictions of only linear classifiers and (2) a simple structure of the textual explanation template.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Russell et al. claim that the generated counterfactual explanations are diverse, as diversity constraints are applied iteratively to a set of candidate counterfactuals [153].
“In addition, the generated counterfactual explanations are claimed to be diverse, as diversity constraints are applied iteratively to a set of candidate counterfactuals.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Russell et al. adopt a similar approach to encompass continuous and discrete variables as well as the combination of the two [153].
“Russell et al. adopt a similar approach to encompass continuous and discrete variables as well as the combination of the two [153].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
The main focus of Russell et al.'s work [153] is placed on assessing coherence and diversity of generated counterfactuals.
“The main focus of the work is however placed on assessing coherence and diversity of generated counterfactuals.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Multiple-sentence counterfactual explanations provide end-users with specific details for the given decision or explain multiple decisions at once.
“In contrast, multiple-sentence explanations provide end-users with specific details for the given decision [153], [156], [157], [161] or explain multiple decisions at once [146].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Some publications stress that human evaluation should be encouraged to estimate the quality and effectiveness of the generated counterfactuals.
“However, whereas certain publications do not provide any specific evaluation method, some do stress that human evaluation should be encouraged to estimate the quality and effectiveness of the generated counterfactuals [46], [150], [153].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Cites
Causal preemption and counterfactuals
Bunzl, M. (1980) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/bf00354164 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Causal Chains and Counterfactual
Goosens, W. K. (1979) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.5840/jphil197976934 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stepin, I., Alonso, J. M., Catala, A., & Pereira-Farina, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3051315 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ruben, D.-H.
- Corresponding author
- Ruben, David-Hillel
- ORCID
- Ruben, David-Hillel
- Venue
- Noûs
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 465
- ISSN
- 0029-4624 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2334994453
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Noûs (publishedVersion)
- BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
- Keywords
- causal explanation, folk physics, counterfactuals, Davidson, laws of nature
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