Cited by 119Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

GANterfactual—Counterfactual Explanations for Medical Non-experts Using Generative Adversarial Learning

Open access
Mertes, Silvan, Huber, Tobias, Weitz, Katharina, Heimerl, Alexander, André, Elisabeth·2022·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

With the ongoing rise of machine learning, the need for methods for explaining decisions made by artificial intelligence systems is becoming a more and more important topic. Especially for image classification tasks, many state-of-the-art tools to explain such classifiers rely on visual highlighting of important areas of the input data. Contrary, counterfactual explanation systems try to enable a counterfactual reasoning by modifying the input image in a way such that the classifier would have made a different prediction. By doing so, the users of counterfactual explanation systems are equipped with a completely different kind of explanatory information. However, methods for generating realistic counterfactual explanations for image classifiers are still rare. Especially in medical contexts, where relevant information often consists of textural and structural information, high-quality counterfactual images have the potential to give meaningful insights into decision processes. In this work, we present GANterfactual , an approach to generate such counterfactual image explanations based on adversarial image-to-image translation techniques. Additionally, we conduct a user study to evaluate our approach in an exemplary medical use case. Our results show that, in the chosen medical use-case, counterfactual explanations lead to significantly better results regarding mental models, explanation satisfaction, trust, emotions, and self-efficacy than two state-of-the art systems that work with saliency maps, namely LIME and LRP.

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 · 10.3389/frai.2022.825565

Cites

52 of 52 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

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hall P. Gill N. (2018). Introduction to Machine Learning Interpretability. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Incorporated.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mertes, S., Huber, T., Weitz, K., Heimerl, A., & André, E.
Affiliations
University of Augsburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Mertes, Silvan
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2022-04-08
Volume
5
Pages
825565-825565
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3187709298
Cited by
119
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6
FWCI
7.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
counterfactual explanations, generative adversarial networks, image-to-image translation, medical image classification, explainable AI, adversarial perturbation generation, non-expert users, user study, mental models, trust in AI, self-efficacy, saliency maps, lime, LRP

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