Longitudinal Counterfactuals: Constraints and Opportunities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00105v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:17:08 GMT
• Title: Longitudinal Counterfactuals: Constraints and Opportunities
• Authors: Alexander Asemota and Giles Hooker
• Abstract summary: We propose using longitudinal data to assess and improve plausibility in counterfactuals. We develop a metric that compares longitudinal differences to counterfactual differences, allowing us to evaluate how similar a counterfactual is to prior observed changes.
• Score: 59.11233767208572
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a common approach to providing recourse to data subjects. However, current methodology can produce counterfactuals that cannot be achieved by the subject, making the use of counterfactuals for recourse difficult to justify in practice. Though there is agreement that plausibility is an important quality when using counterfactuals for algorithmic recourse, ground truth plausibility continues to be difficult to quantify. In this paper, we propose using longitudinal data to assess and improve plausibility in counterfactuals. In particular, we develop a metric that compares longitudinal differences to counterfactual differences, allowing us to evaluate how similar a counterfactual is to prior observed changes. Furthermore, we use this metric to generate plausible counterfactuals. Finally, we discuss some of the inherent difficulties of using counterfactuals for recourse.

Related papers

• Natural Counterfactuals With Necessary Backtracking [21.845725763657022]
  Judea Pearl's influential approach is theoretically elegant, but its generation of a counterfactual scenario often requires too much deviation from the observed scenarios to be feasible. We propose a framework of emphnatural counterfactuals and a method for generating counterfactuals that are more feasible with respect to the actual data distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:11:43Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Generating robust counterfactual explanations [60.32214822437734]
  The quality of a counterfactual depends on several criteria: realism, actionability, validity, robustness, etc. In this paper, we are interested in the notion of robustness of a counterfactual. More precisely, we focus on robustness to counterfactual input changes. We propose a new framework, CROCO, that generates robust counterfactuals while managing effectively this trade-off, and guarantees the user a minimal robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T09:00:31Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• On Quantitative Evaluations of Counterfactuals [88.42660013773647]
  This paper consolidates work on evaluating visual counterfactual examples through an analysis and experiments. We find that while most metrics behave as intended for sufficiently simple datasets, some fail to tell the difference between good and bad counterfactuals when the complexity increases. We propose two new metrics, the Label Variation Score and the Oracle score, which are both less vulnerable to such tiny changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-30T05:00:36Z)
• Counterfactual Evaluation for Explainable AI [21.055319253405603]
  We propose a new methodology to evaluate the faithfulness of explanations from the textitcounterfactual reasoning perspective. We introduce two algorithms to find the proper counterfactuals in both discrete and continuous scenarios and then use the acquired counterfactuals to measure faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-05T01:38:49Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)
• Latent-CF: A Simple Baseline for Reverse Counterfactual Explanations [0.0]
  High quality explanations are first step in assessing fairness. It is important to find a baseline for producing them. We show that latent space counterfactual generation strikes balance between the speed of basic feature gradient descent methods and authenticity of counterfactuals generated by more complex feature space oriented techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-16T22:35:42Z)
• Good Counterfactuals and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for Explainable AI (XAI) [18.45278329799526]
  We show that many commonly-used datasets appear to have few good counterfactuals for explanation purposes. We propose a new case based approach for generating counterfactuals using novel ideas about the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of a case-base.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-26T14:05:10Z)

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.