CERTIFAI: Counterfactual Explanations for Robustness, Transparency, Interpretability, and Fairness of Artificial Intelligence models
Open accessAbstract
As artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role in our society, there are ethical and moral obligations for both businesses and researchers to ensure that their machine learning models are designed, deployed, and maintained responsibly. These models need to be rigorously audited for fairness, robustness, transparency, and interpretability. A variety of methods have been developed that focus on these issues in isolation, however, managing these methods in conjunction with model development can be cumbersome and timeconsuming. In this paper, we introduce a unified and model-agnostic approach to address these issues: Counterfactual Explanations for Robustness, Transparency, Interpretability, and Fairness of Artificial Intelligence models (CERTIFAI). Unlike previous methods in this domain, CERTIFAI is a general tool that can be applied to any black-box model and any type of input data. Given a model and an input instance, CERTIFAI uses a custom genetic algorithm to generate counterfactuals: instances close to the input that change the prediction of the model. We demonstrate how these counterfactuals can be used to examine issues of robustness, interpretability, transparency, and fairness. Additionally, we introduce CERScore, the first black-box model robustness score that performs comparably to methods that have access to model internals.
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?
CERTIFAI uses a customized genetic algorithm to generate counterfactuals that help assess robustness, generate explanations, and examine fairness at individual and group levels.
“Finally, CERTIFAI (Counterfactual Explanations for Robustness, Transparency, Interpretability, and Fairness of Artificial Intelligence models) [402] uses a customized genetic algorithm to generate counterfactuals that can help to see the robustness of a ML model, generate explanations, and examine fairness (both at the individual level and at the group level) at the same time.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [402]
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
Cited by 28
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [Akhtar and Mian, 2018] Naveed Akhtar and Ajmal Mian. Threat of adversarial attacks on deep learning in computer vision: A survey. IEEE Access , 6:14410-14430, 2018.
- [Binns, 2017] Reuben Binns. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.03586 , 2017. · arXiv
- [Guidotti et al. , 2018a] Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi, Franco Turini, and Fosca Giannotti. Local rule-based explanations of black box decision systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10820 , 2018. · arXiv
- [Guidotti et al. , 2018b] Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , 51(5):93, 2018.
- [Harik et al. , 1999] Georges R Harik, Fernando G Lobo, and David E Goldberg. The compact genetic algorithm. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation , 3(4):287-297, 1999.
- [Howard et al. , 2017] Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 , 2017. · arXiv
- [Madry et al. , 2017] Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083 , 2017. · arXiv
- [Wachter et al. , 2017] Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the gdpr. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology , 31(2):2018, 2017.
- [Weng et al. , 2018] Tsui-Wei Weng, Huan Zhang, Pin-Yu Chen, Jinfeng Yi, Dong Su, Yupeng Gao, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Luca Daniel. Evaluating the robustness of neural networks: An extreme value theory approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.10578 , 2018. · arXiv
- Authors
- Sharma, S., Henderson, J., & Ghosh, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1905.07857
- OpenAlex
- W6966940381
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- counterfactual explanations, model robustness, algorithmic fairness, interpretability, transparency, black-box models, model auditing
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
