On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13132v1
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:25:47 GMT
- Title: On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity
- Authors: Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, Gjergji Kasneci
- Abstract summary: Counterfactual explanations are usually obtained by identifying the smallest change made to an input to change a prediction made by a fixed model.
Recent work has revitalized an old insight: there often does not exist one superior solution to a prediction problem with respect to commonly used measures of interest.
- Score: 14.37676876556672
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are usually obtained by identifying the smallest
change made to an input to change a prediction made by a fixed model (hereafter
called sparse methods). Recent work, however, has revitalized an old insight:
there often does not exist one superior solution to a prediction problem with
respect to commonly used measures of interest (e.g. error rate). In fact, often
multiple different classifiers give almost equal solutions. This phenomenon is
known as predictive multiplicity (Breiman, 2001; Marx et al., 2019). In this
work, we derive a general upper bound for the costs of counterfactual
explanations under predictive multiplicity. Most notably, it depends on a
discrepancy notion between two classifiers, which describes how differently
they treat negatively predicted individuals. We then compare sparse and data
support approaches empirically on real-world data. The results show that data
support methods are more robust to multiplicity of different models. At the
same time, we show that those methods have provably higher cost of generating
counterfactual explanations under one fixed model. In summary, our theoretical
and empiricaln results challenge the commonly held view that counterfactual
recommendations should be sparse in general.
Related papers
- How many classifiers do we need? [50.69951049206484]
We provide a detailed analysis of how the disagreement and the polarization among classifiers relate to the performance gain achieved by aggregating individual classifiers.
We prove results for the behavior of the disagreement in terms of the number of classifiers.
Our theories and claims are supported by empirical results on several image classification tasks with various types of neural networks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-01T02:59:56Z) - DistPred: A Distribution-Free Probabilistic Inference Method for Regression and Forecasting [14.390842560217743]
We propose a novel approach called DistPred for regression and forecasting tasks.
We transform proper scoring rules that measure the discrepancy between the predicted distribution and the target distribution into a differentiable discrete form.
This allows the model to sample numerous samples in a single forward pass to estimate the potential distribution of the response variable.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-17T10:33:00Z) - Debiasing Multimodal Models via Causal Information Minimization [65.23982806840182]
We study bias arising from confounders in a causal graph for multimodal data.
Robust predictive features contain diverse information that helps a model generalize to out-of-distribution data.
We use these features as confounder representations and use them via methods motivated by causal theory to remove bias from models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-28T16:46:14Z) - When are ensembles really effective? [49.37269057899679]
We study the question of when ensembling yields significant performance improvements in classification tasks.
We show that ensembling improves performance significantly whenever the disagreement rate is large relative to the average error rate.
We identify practical scenarios where ensembling does and does not result in large performance improvements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-21T01:36:25Z) - Explainability as statistical inference [29.74336283497203]
We propose a general deep probabilistic model designed to produce interpretable predictions.
The model parameters can be learned via maximum likelihood, and the method can be adapted to any predictor network architecture.
We show experimentally that using multiple imputation provides more reasonable interpretations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-06T16:55:10Z) - Diverse Counterfactual Explanations for Anomaly Detection in Time Series [26.88575131193757]
We propose a model-agnostic algorithm that generates counterfactual ensemble explanations for time series anomaly detection models.
Our method generates a set of diverse counterfactual examples, i.e., multiple versions of the original time series that are not considered anomalous by the detection model.
Our algorithm is applicable to any differentiable anomaly detection model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-21T16:30:34Z) - Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable
Explanations [64.85696493596821]
In computer vision applications, generative counterfactual methods indicate how to perturb a model's input to change its prediction.
We propose a counterfactual method that learns a perturbation in a disentangled latent space that is constrained using a diversity-enforcing loss.
Our model improves the success rate of producing high-quality valuable explanations when compared to previous state-of-the-art methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-18T12:57:34Z) - Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers.
We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model.
Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z) - Ambiguity in Sequential Data: Predicting Uncertain Futures with
Recurrent Models [110.82452096672182]
We propose an extension of the Multiple Hypothesis Prediction (MHP) model to handle ambiguous predictions with sequential data.
We also introduce a novel metric for ambiguous problems, which is better suited to account for uncertainties.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-03-10T09:15:42Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.