Cited by 286Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgePhilosophy and History of Science

Counterfactuals in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Evidence from Human Reasoning

Open access
Byrne, Ruth M. J.·2019·Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Counterfactuals about what could have happened are increasingly used in an array of Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, and especially in explainable AI (XAI). Counterfactuals can aid the provision of interpretable models to make the decisions of inscrutable systems intelligible to developers and users. However, not all counterfactuals are equally helpful in assisting human comprehension. Discoveries about the nature of the counterfactuals that humans create are a helpful guide to maximize the effectiveness of counterfactual use in AI.

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 · 10.24963/ijcai.2019/876

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Biran and Cotton, 2017] Or Biran and Courtenay Cotton. Explanation and justification in machine learning: A survey. In IJCAI-17 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI), 8: 8-13, 2017.
  2. James Dixon and Ruth M.J. Byrne. Counterfactual thinking about exceptional actions. Memory & Cognition, 39(7): 1317-31, 2011.
  3. Mathew L. Ginsberg. Counterfactuals. Artificial intelligence, 30(1): 35-79, 1986.
  4. Halpern and Pearl, 2005] Joseph Halpern and Judea Pearl. Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach. Part 1: causes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Sci- ence, 56(4): 843-87, 2005.
  5. David Lewis. Causation. Journal of Philoso- phy, 70: 556-67, 1973.
  6. Bertram F. Malle, Steve Guglielmo, and Andrew E. Monroe. A theory of blame. Psychological In- quiry, 25(2): 147-86, 2014.
  7. Miller and Gunasegaram, 1990]. Dale Miller and Saku Gun- asegaram. Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(6): 1111-18, 1990.
  8. Rim and Summerville, 2014] SoYon Rim and Amy Sum- merville. How far to the road not taken? The effect of psy- chological distance on counterfactual direction. Personal- ity & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(3): 391-401, 2014.
  9. Smallman and McCulloch, 2012] Rachel Smallman and Kathleen McCulloch. Learning from yesterday's mistakes to fix tomorrow's problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42 (3): 383-90, 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, R. M. J.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Byrne, Ruth M. J.
Venue
Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2019-08
Pages
6276-6282
OpenAlex
W2966362896
Cited by
285
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 4
FWCI
12.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
counterfactuals, explainable AI, human reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, interpretability, model interpretability

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