A Series of Unfortunate Counterfactual Events: the Role of Time in Counterfactual Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04687v2
• Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:52:07 GMT
• Title: A Series of Unfortunate Counterfactual Events: the Role of Time in Counterfactual Explanations
• Authors: Andrea Ferrario, Michele Loi
• Abstract summary: We show that the literature has neglected the problem of the time dependency of counterfactual explanations. We argue that, due to their time dependency and because of the provision of recommendations, even feasible, actionable and sparse counterfactual explanations may not be appropriate in real-world applications.
• Score: 2.0305676256390934
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a prominent example of post-hoc interpretability methods in the explainable Artificial Intelligence research domain. They provide individuals with alternative scenarios and a set of recommendations to achieve a sought-after machine learning model outcome. Recently, the literature has identified desiderata of counterfactual explanations, such as feasibility, actionability and sparsity that should support their applicability in real-world contexts. However, we show that the literature has neglected the problem of the time dependency of counterfactual explanations. We argue that, due to their time dependency and because of the provision of recommendations, even feasible, actionable and sparse counterfactual explanations may not be appropriate in real-world applications. This is due to the possible emergence of what we call "unfortunate counterfactual events." These events may occur due to the retraining of machine learning models whose outcomes have to be explained via counterfactual explanation. Series of unfortunate counterfactual events frustrate the efforts of those individuals who successfully implemented the recommendations of counterfactual explanations. This negatively affects people's trust in the ability of institutions to provide machine learning-supported decisions consistently. We introduce an approach to address the problem of the emergence of unfortunate counterfactual events that makes use of histories of counterfactual explanations. In the final part of the paper we propose an ethical analysis of two distinct strategies to cope with the challenge of unfortunate counterfactual events. We show that they respond to an ethically responsible imperative to preserve the trustworthiness of credit lending organizations, the decision models they employ, and the social-economic function of credit lending.

Related papers

• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Rethinking Explainability as a Dialogue: A Practitioner's Perspective [57.87089539718344]
  We ask doctors, healthcare professionals, and policymakers about their needs and desires for explanations. Our study indicates that decision-makers would strongly prefer interactive explanations in the form of natural language dialogues. Considering these needs, we outline a set of five principles researchers should follow when designing interactive explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T22:17:21Z)
• When and How to Fool Explainable Models (and Humans) with Adversarial Examples [1.439518478021091]
  We explore the possibilities and limits of adversarial attacks for explainable machine learning models. First, we extend the notion of adversarial examples to fit in explainable machine learning scenarios. Next, we propose a comprehensive framework to study whether adversarial examples can be generated for explainable models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T11:20:55Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated [40.78019510022835]
  We introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. We show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T18:56:15Z)
• Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Poverty Estimation [63.18666008322476]
  Machine learning methods are being increasingly applied in sensitive societal contexts. The present case study has two main objectives. First, to expose these challenges and how they affect the use of relevant and novel explanations methods. And second, to present a set of strategies that mitigate such challenges, as faced when implementing explanation methods in a relevant application domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T01:54:58Z)
• Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Survey for Practitioners [69.02688684221265]
  The use of sophisticated statistical models that influence decisions in domains of high societal relevance is on the rise. Many governments, institutions, and companies are reluctant to their adoption as their output is often difficult to explain in human-interpretable ways. Recently, the academic literature has proposed a substantial amount of methods for providing interpretable explanations to machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T01:46:34Z)
• Counterfactual Credit Assignment in Model-Free Reinforcement Learning [47.79277857377155]
  Credit assignment in reinforcement learning is the problem of measuring an action's influence on future rewards. We adapt the notion of counterfactuals from causality theory to a model-free RL setup. We formulate a family of policy algorithms that use future-conditional value functions as baselines or critics, and show that they are provably low variance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-18T18:41:44Z)
• Learning Models for Actionable Recourse [31.30850378503406]
  We propose an algorithm that theoretically guarantees recourse to affected individuals with high probability without sacrificing accuracy. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach via extensive experiments on real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T01:15:18Z)
• Learning "What-if" Explanations for Sequential Decision-Making [92.8311073739295]
  Building interpretable parameterizations of real-world decision-making on the basis of demonstrated behavior is essential. We propose learning explanations of expert decisions by modeling their reward function in terms of preferences with respect to "what if" outcomes. We highlight the effectiveness of our batch, counterfactual inverse reinforcement learning approach in recovering accurate and interpretable descriptions of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-02T14:24:17Z)

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.