CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 270Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AISoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review

Open access
Verma, Sahil, Boonsanong, Varich, Hoang, Minh, Hines, Keegan E., Dickerson, John P., Shah, Chirag·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596arXiv 2010.10596
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine learning based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596

Cites

272 of 272 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

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

6 of the 278 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. [1][1] Abubakar Abid, Mert Yuksekgonul, and James Zou. 2022. Meaningfully debugging model mistakes using conceptual counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) , Vol. 162. PMLR, 66-88. https://proceedings . mlr . press/ v162/abid22a . html -
  2. [5][5] Ulrich Aivodji, Hiromi Arai, Olivier Fortineau, Sébastien Gambs, Satoshi Hara, and Alain Tapp. 2019. Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) , Vol. 97. PMLR, 161-170. https://proceedings . mlr . press/v97/ aivodji19a . html -
  3. [6][6] Ulrich Aïvodji, Hiromi Arai, Sébastien Gambs, and Satoshi Hara. 2021. Characterizing the risk of fairwashing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 14822-14834. https: //proceedings . neurips . cc/paper/2021/file/7caf5e22ea3eb8175ab518429c8589a4Paper . pdf -
  4. [15][15] Javier Antoran, Umang Bhatt, Tameem Adel, Adrian Weller, and José Miguel Hernández-Lobato. 2021. Getting a {CLUE}: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimates. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview . net/forum?id = XSLF1XFq5h -
  5. [18][18] André Artelt and Barbara Hammer. 2019. On the computation of counterfactual explanations - A survey. http://arxiv . org/abs/1911 . 07749 -
  6. [34][34] Emily Black, Zifan Wang, and Matt Fredrikson. 2022. Consistent Counterfactuals for Deep Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https: //arxiv . org/abs/2110 . 03109 -
  7. [36][36] R. D. Boch and M. Lieberman. 1970. Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika 35 (1970), 179-97. -
  8. [49][49] Emilio Carrizosa, Jasone Ramirez-Ayerbe, and Dolores Romero Morales. 2021. Generating Collective Counterfactual Explanations in Score-Based Classification via Mathematical Optimization. https://doi . org/10 . 13140/RG . 2 . 2 . 22996 . 12168/1 -
  9. [50][50] Emilio Carrizosa, Jasone Ramírez-Ayerbe, and Dolores Romero Morales. 2022. Counterfactual Explanations for Functional Data: A Mathematical Optimization Approach. https://doi . org/10 . 13140/RG . 2 . 2 . 25682 . 68801 -
  10. [57][57] Ziheng Chen, Fabrizio Silvestri, Jia Wang, He Zhu, Hongshik Ahn, and Gabriele Tolomei. 2021. ReLAX: Reinforcement Learning Agent eXplainer for Arbitrary Predictive Models. https://doi . org/10 . 48550/ARXIV . 2110 . 11960 -
  11. [58][58] Furui Cheng, Yao Ming, and Huamin Qu. 2020. DECE: Decision Explorer with Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Models. arXiv:cs.LG/2008.08353 -
  12. [65][65] Mark W. Craven and Jude W. Shavlik. 1995. Extracting Tree-Structured Representations of Trained Networks. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (NIPS'95) . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 24-30. -
  13. [67][67] Susanne Dandl, Christoph Molnar, Martin Binder, and Bernd Bischl. 2020. MultiObjective Counterfactual Explanations. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XVI . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 448-469. -
  14. [78][78] Amit Dhurandhar, Pin-Yu Chen, Ronny Luss, Chun-Chen Tu, Paishun Ting, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, and Payel Das. 2018. Explanations Based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negatives. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'18) . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 590-601. -
  15. [79][79] Amit Dhurandhar, Tejaswini Pedapati, Avinash Balakrishnan, Pin-Yu Chen, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, and Ruchir Puri. 2019. Model Agnostic Contrastive Explanations for Structured Data. http://arxiv . org/abs/1906 . 00117 -
  16. [82][82] Carl Doersch. 2016. Tutorial on Variational Autoencoders. arXiv:stat.ML/1606.05908 -
  17. [86][86] Michael Downs, Jonathan Chu, Yaniv Yacoby, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Weiwei. Pan. 2020. CRUDS: Counterfactual Recourse Using Disentangled Subspaces. In Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI) . https://finale . seas . harvard . edu/files/finale/files/cruds-\_counterfactual\_recourse\_using\_disentangled\_subspaces . pdf -
  18. [89][89] Tri Dung Duong, Qian Li, and Guandong Xu. 2021. Prototype-based Counterfactual Explanation for Causal Classification. https://doi . org/10 . 48550/ ARXIV . 2105 . 00703 -
  19. [90][90] Sanghamitra Dutta, Jason Long, Saumitra Mishra, Cecilia Tilli, and Daniele Magazzeni. 2022. Robust Counterfactual Explanations for Tree-Based Ensembles. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) , Vol. 162. PMLR, 5742-5756. https://proceedings . mlr . press/v162/dutta22a . html -
  20. [98][98] Carlos Fernández-Loría, Foster Provost, and Xintian Han. 2020. Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach. http://arxiv . org/abs/2001 . 07417 -
  21. [101][101] Giorgos Filandrianos, Konstantinos Thomas, Edmund Dervakos, and Giorgos Stamou. 2022. Conceptual Edits as Counterfactual Explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2022 Spring Symposium on Machine Learning and Knowledge Engineering for Hybrid Intelligence (AAAI-MAKE 2022), Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA, March 21-23, 2022 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings) , Vol. 3121. CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws . org/Vol-3121/paper6 . pdf -
  22. [106][106] Jerome H. Friedman. 2001. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. The Annals of Statistics 29, 5 (2001), 1189-1232. http: //www . jstor . org/stable/2699986 -
  23. [107][107] Jörg Frohberg and Frank Binder. 2022. CRASS: A Novel Data Set and Benchmark to Test Counterfactual Reasoning of Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 2126-2140. https://aclanthology . org/ 2022 . lrec-1 . 229 -
  24. [109][109] Maximilian Förster, Philipp Hühn, Mathias Klier, and Kilian Kluge. 2021. Capturing Users' Reality: A Novel Approach to Generate Coherent Counterfactual Explanations. https://doi . org/10 . 24251/HICSS . 2021 . 155 -
  25. [110][110] Sainyam Galhotra, Romila Pradhan, and Babak Salimi. 2021. Explaining BlackBox Algorithms Using Probabilistic Contrastive Counterfactuals. In SIGMOD '21: International Conference on Management of Data, Virtual Event, China, June 20-25, 2021 . ACM. https://doi . org/10 . 1145/3448016 . 3458455 , , -
  26. [115][115] Asma Ghandeharioun, Been Kim, Chun-Liang Li, Brendan Jou, Brian Eoff, and Rosalind Picard. 2022. DISSECT: Disentangled Simultaneous Explanations via Concept Traversals. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview . net/forum?id = qY79G8jGsep -
  27. [122][122] Yash Goyal, Ziyan Wu, Jan Ernst, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Counterfactual Visual Explanations. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) , Vol. 97. PMLR, 2376-2384. https://proceedings . mlr . press/v97/goyal19a . html -
  28. [124][124] Rory Mc Grath, Luca Costabello, Chan Le Van, Paul Sweeney, Farbod Kamiab, Zhao Shen, and Freddy Lecue. 2018. Interpretable Credit Application Predictions With Counterfactual Explanations. http://arxiv . org/abs/1811 . 05245 -
  29. [126][126] Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi, Franco Turini, and Fosca Giannotti. 2018. Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systems. http://arxiv . org/abs/1805 . 10820 -
  30. [130][130] Hangzhi Guo, Thanh Hong Nguyen, and Amulya Yadav. 2021. CounterNet: End-to-End Training of Counterfactual Aware Predictions. https://doi . org/ 10 . 48550/ARXIV . 2109 . 07557 -
  31. [141][141] Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven Mark Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A Design Probe to Understand How Data Scientists Understand Machine Learning Models. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2019). -
  32. [149][149] Global Women in Data Science Conference The Global Open Source Severity of Illness Score Consortium. 2020. WiDS Datathon 2020. https://www . kaggle . com/ c/widsdatathon2020 -
  33. [157][157] Alistair Johnson, Lucas Bulgarelli, Tom Pollard, Steven Horng, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger Mark. 2021. MIMIC-IV. https://doi . org/10 . 13026/S6N6-XD98 -
  34. [159][159] Shalmali Joshi, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Warut Vijitbenjaronk, Been Kim, and Joydeep Ghosh. 2019. Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systems. http://arxiv . org/abs/1907 . 09615 -
  35. [161][161] Vassilis Kaffes, Dimitris Sacharidis, and Giorgos Giannopoulos. 2021. ModelAgnostic Counterfactual Explanations of Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP '21) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6. https://doi . org/10 . 1145/3450613 . 3456846 -
  36. [166][166] Kentaro Kanamori, Takuya Takagi, Ken Kobayashi, Yuichi Ike, Kento Uemura, and Hiroki Arimura. 2021. Ordered Counterfactual Explanation by MixedInteger Linear Optimization. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35, 13 (2021), 11. https://doi . org/10 . 1609/aaai . v35i13 . 17376 -
  37. [167][167] A.-H. Karimi, G. Barthe, B. Balle, and I. Valera. 2020. Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions. http://arxiv . org/abs/1905 . 11190 -
  38. [169][169] Amir-Hossein Karimi, Julius von Kügelgen, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Isabel Valera. 2020. Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approach. http://arxiv . org/abs/2006 . 06831 -
  39. [181][181] Anton Korikov and J. Christopher Beck. 2021. Counterfactual Explanations via Inverse Constraint Programming. In 27th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2021) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)) , Vol. 210. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 35:1-35:16. https: //doi . org/10 . 4230/LIPIcs . CP . 2021 . 35 -
  40. [190][190] Thibault Laugel, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Christophe Marsala, and Marcin Detyniecki. 2019. Issues with post-hoc counterfactual explanations: a discussion. arXiv:1906.04774 - · arXiv
  41. [193][193] Thai Le, Suhang Wang, and Dongwon Lee. 2019. GRACE: Generating Concise and Informative Contrastive Sample to Explain Neural Network Model's Prediction. arXiv:cs.LG/1911.02042 -
  42. [196][196] David Lewis. 1973. Counterfactuals . Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. -
  43. [197][197] Dan Ley, Saumitra Mishra, and Daniele Magazzeni. 2022. Global Counterfactual Explanations: Investigations, Implementations and Improvements. In ICLR Workshop on Privacy, Accountability, Interpretability, Robustness, Reasoning on Structured Data . -
  44. [203][203] Ana Lucic, Harrie Oosterhuis, Hinda Haned, and Maarten de Rijke. 2020. Actionable Interpretability through Optimizable Counterfactual Explanations for Tree Ensembles. http://arxiv . org/abs/1911 . 12199 -
  45. [204][204] Ana Lucic, Maartje ter Hoeve, Gabriele Tolomei, Maarten de Rijke, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2021. CF-GNNExplainer: Counterfactual Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. arXiv:cs.LG/2102.03322 , , -
  46. [210][210] Divyat Mahajan, Chenhao Tan, and Amit Sharma. 2020. Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifiers. http://arxiv . org/abs/1912 . 03277 -
  47. [213][213] Raphael Mazzine, Sofie Goethals, Dieter Brughmans, and David Martens. 2021. Counterfactual Explanations for Employment Services. In International workshop on Fair, Effective And Sustainable Talent management using data science . 1-7. -
  48. [222][222] Wellington Rodrigo Monteiro and Gilberto Reynoso-Meza. 2022. Counterfactual Generation Through Multi-objective Constrained Optimisation. (2022), 23. https://doi . org/10 . 21203/rs . 3 . rs-1325730/v1 -
  49. [228][228] Guillermo Navas-Palencia. 2021. Optimal Counterfactual Explanations for Scorecard modelling. https://arxiv . org/abs/2104 . 08619 , , -
  50. [230][230] Daniel Nemirovsky, Nicolas Thiebaut, Ye Xu, and Abhishek Gupta. 2022. CounteRGAN: Generating counterfactuals for real-time recourse and interpretability using residual GANs. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) . PMLR, 1488-1497. https://proceedings . mlr . press/v180/nemirovsky22a . html -
  51. [231][231] Tri Minh Nguyen, Thomas P Quinn, Thin Nguyen, and Truyen Tran. 2021. Counterfactual Explanation with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Drug Target Prediction. arXiv:cs.AI/2103.12983 -
  52. [238][238] Axel Parmentier and Thibaut Vidal. 2021. Optimal Counterfactual Explanations in Tree Ensembles. https://arxiv . org/abs/2106 . 06631 -
  53. [239][239] Martin Pawelczyk, Chirag Agarwal, Shalmali Joshi, Sohini Upadhyay, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2022. Exploring Counterfactual Explanations Through the Lens of Adversarial Examples: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research) , Vol. 151. PMLR, 4574-4594. https://proceedings . mlr . press/v151/pawelczyk22a . html -
  54. [240][240] Martin Pawelczyk, Sascha Bielawski, Johannes van den Heuvel, Tobias Richter, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2021. CARLA: A Python Library to Benchmark Algorithmic Recourse and Counterfactual Explanation Algorithms. arXiv:cs.LG/2108.00783 -
  55. [241][241] Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji. Kasneci. 2020. On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity. In Proceedings of Machine Learning Research . PMLR, Virtual, 9. http://proceedings . mlr . press/v124/ pawelczyk20a . html -
  56. [245][245] Tejaswini Pedapati, Avinash Balakrishnan, Karthikeyan Shanmugan, and Amit Dhurandhar. 2020. Learning Global Transparent Models Consistent with Local Contrastive Explanations. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'20) . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 11. -
  57. [250][250] Goutham Ramakrishnan, Y. C. Lee, and Aws Albarghouthi. 2020. Synthesizing Action Sequences for Modifying Model Decisions. In Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) . AAAI press, California, USA, 16. http://arxiv . org/abs/ 1910 . 00057 -
  58. [254][254] Shubham Rathi. 2019. Generating Counterfactual and Contrastive Explanations using SHAP. http://arxiv . org/abs/1906 . 09293 arXiv: 1906.09293. - · arXiv
  59. [255][255] Shauli Ravfogel, Grusha Prasad, Tal Linzen, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Counterfactual Interventions Reveal the Causal Effect of Relative Clause Representations on Agreement Prediction. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning . Association for Computational Linguistics, 194-209. https://doi . org/10 . 18653/v1/2021 . conll-1 . 15 -
  60. [257][257] Kaivalya Rawal, Ece Kamar, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2021. Algorithmic Recourse in the Wild: Understanding the Impact of Data and Model Shifts. arXiv:cs.LG/2012.11788 -
  61. [260][260] Chris Reed, Keri Grieman, and Joseph Early. 2021. Non-Asimov Explanations Regulating AI Through Transparency. In Queen Mary Law Research Paper No. 370/2021 . https://ssrn . com/abstract = 3970518 -
  62. [262][262] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Anchors: HighPrecision Model-Agnostic Explanations. In Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) . AAAI press, California, USA, 9. https://www . aaai . org/ocs/index . php/ AAAI/AAAI18/paper/view/16982 -
  63. [265][265] Alexis Ross, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Osbert Bastani. 2021. Learning Models for Actionable Recourse. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 18734-18746. https://proceedings . neurips . cc/ paper/2021/file/9b82909c30456ac902e14526e63081d4-Paper . pdf -
  64. [266][266] David-Hillel Ruben. 1992. Counterfactuals . Routledge Publishers. https:// philarchive . org/archive/RUBEE-3 -
  65. [268][268] Sophie Sadler, Derek Greene, and Daniel W. Archambault. 2021. A Study of Explainable Community-Level Features. In GEM: Graph Embedding and Mining ECML-PKDD 2021 Workshop+Tutorial . -
  66. [269][269] Surya Shravan Kumar Sajja, Sumanta Mukherjee, Satyam Dwivedi, and Vikas C. Raykar. 2021. Semi-supervised counterfactual explanations. https:// openreview . net/forum?id = o6ndFLB1DST -
  67. [270][270] Robert-Florian Samoilescu, Arnaud Van Looveren, and Janis Klaise. 2021. Modelagnostic and Scalable Counterfactual Explanations via Reinforcement Learning. https://doi . org/10 . 48550/ARXIV . 2106 . 02597 -
  68. [278][278] Shubham Sharma, Jette Henderson, and Joydeep Ghosh. 2019. CERTIFAI: Counterfactual Explanations for Robustness, Transparency, Interpretability, and Fairness of Artificial Intelligence models. http://arxiv . org/abs/1905 . 07857 -
  69. [282][282] Dylan Slack, Sophie Hilgard, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated. arXiv:cs.LG/2106.02666 -
  70. [283][283] J. W. Smith, J. Everhart, W. C. Dickson, W. Knowler, and R. Johannes. 1988. Using the ADAP Learning Algorithm to Forecast the Onset of Diabetes Mellitus. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care . American Medical Informatics Association, Washington,D.C., 261-265. -
  71. [288][288] Laura State. 2021. Logic Programming for XAI: A Technical Perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming 2021 Workshops (ICLP 2021) , Vol. 2970. http://ceur-ws . org/Vol-2970/meepaper1 . pdf -
  72. [289][289] Gregory Stein. 2021. Generating High-Quality Explanations for Navigation in Partially-Revealed Environments. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 17493-17506. https: //proceedings . neurips . cc/paper/2021/file/926ec030f29f83ce5318754fdb631a33Paper . pdf -
  73. [299][299] Jayaraman Thiagarajan, Vivek Sivaraman Narayanaswamy, Deepta Rajan, Jia Liang, Akshay Chaudhari, and Andreas Spanias. 2021. Designing Counterfactual Generators using Deep Model Inversion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 16873-16884. https://proceedings . neurips . cc/paper/2021/file/ 8ca01ea920679a0fe3728441494041b9-Paper . pdf -
  74. [300][300] Erico Tjoa and Cuntai Guan. 2019. A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAI. arXiv:cs.LG/1907.07374 -
  75. [305][305] Stratis Tsirtsis, Abir De, and Manuel Rodriguez. 2021. Counterfactual Explanations in Sequential Decision Making Under Uncertainty. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 30127-30139. https://proceedings . neurips . cc/paper/2021/file/ fd0a5a5e367a0955d81278062ef37429-Paper . pdf -
  76. [306][306] Stratis Tsirtsis and Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez. 2020. Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behavior. arXiv:cs.LG/2002.04333 -
  77. [309][309] Sohini Upadhyay, Shalmali Joshi, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2021. Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse. arXiv:cs.LG/2102.13620 -
  78. [311][311] Arnaud Van Looveren and Janis Klaise. 2020. Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypes. http://arxiv . org/abs/1907 . 02584 -
  79. [316][316] Sahil Verma, Keegan Hines, and John P. Dickerson. 2021. Amortized Generation of Sequential Counterfactual Explanations for Black-box Models. arXiv:cs.LG/2106.03962 -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K. E., Dickerson, J. P., & Shah, C.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
1-42
ISSN
0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596
arXiv
2010.10596
OpenAlex
W4400461591
Cited by
267
References
278
Citations by year
2026: 109 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 4
FWCI
35.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
counterfactual explanations, explainable machine learning, algorithmic recourse, legal recourse, trustworthy AI

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