Generating Counterfactual Explanations Using Cardinality Constraints

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07502v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:33:19 GMT
• Title: Generating Counterfactual Explanations Using Cardinality Constraints
• Authors: Rubén Ruiz-Torrubiano,
• Abstract summary: We propose to explicitly add a cardinality constraint to counterfactual generation limiting how many features can be different from the original example. This will provide more interpretable and easily understantable counterfactuals.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Providing explanations about how machine learning algorithms work and/or make particular predictions is one of the main tools that can be used to improve their trusworthiness, fairness and robustness. Among the most intuitive type of explanations are counterfactuals, which are examples that differ from a given point only in the prediction target and some set of features, presenting which features need to be changed in the original example to flip the prediction for that example. However, such counterfactuals can have many different features than the original example, making their interpretation difficult. In this paper, we propose to explicitly add a cardinality constraint to counterfactual generation limiting how many features can be different from the original example, thus providing more interpretable and easily understantable counterfactuals.

Related papers

• Achieving Diversity in Counterfactual Explanations: a Review and Discussion [3.6066164404432883]
  In the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual examples explain to a user the predictions of a trained decision model. This paper proposes a review of the numerous, sometimes conflicting, definitions that have been proposed for this notion of diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T02:09:19Z)
• Understanding Post-hoc Explainers: The Case of Anchors [6.681943980068051]
  We present a theoretical analysis of a rule-based interpretability method that highlights a small set of words to explain a text's decision. After formalizing its algorithm and providing useful insights, we demonstrate mathematically that Anchors produces meaningful results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T17:56:34Z)
• An Additive Instance-Wise Approach to Multi-class Model Interpretation [53.87578024052922]
  Interpretable machine learning offers insights into what factors drive a certain prediction of a black-box system. Existing methods mainly focus on selecting explanatory input features, which follow either locally additive or instance-wise approaches. This work exploits the strengths of both methods and proposes a global framework for learning local explanations simultaneously for multiple target classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T06:50:27Z)
• Probabilistic Sufficient Explanations [31.08715352013011]
  We introduce probabilistic sufficient explanations, which formulate explaining an instance of classification as choosing the "simplest" subset of features. We design a scalable algorithm for finding the desired explanations while keeping the guarantees intact. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm in finding sufficient explanations, and showcase its advantages compared to Anchors and logical explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-21T04:03:10Z)
• Generative Counterfactuals for Neural Networks via Attribute-Informed Perturbation [51.29486247405601]
  We design a framework to generate counterfactuals for raw data instances with the proposed Attribute-Informed Perturbation (AIP) By utilizing generative models conditioned with different attributes, counterfactuals with desired labels can be obtained effectively and efficiently. Experimental results on real-world texts and images demonstrate the effectiveness, sample quality as well as efficiency of our designed framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T08:37:13Z)
• Toward Scalable and Unified Example-based Explanation and Outlier Detection [128.23117182137418]
  We argue for a broader adoption of prototype-based student networks capable of providing an example-based explanation for their prediction. We show that our prototype-based networks beyond similarity kernels deliver meaningful explanations and promising outlier detection results without compromising classification accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-11T05:58:17Z)
• Towards Unifying Feature Attribution and Counterfactual Explanations: Different Means to the Same End [17.226134854746267]
  We present a method to generate feature attribution explanations from a set of counterfactual examples. We show how counterfactual examples can be used to evaluate the goodness of an attribution-based explanation in terms of its necessity and sufficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-10T05:41:43Z)
• Deducing neighborhoods of classes from a fitted model [68.8204255655161]
  In this article a new kind of interpretable machine learning method is presented. It can help to understand the partitioning of the feature space into predicted classes in a classification model using quantile shifts. Basically, real data points (or specific points of interest) are used and the changes of the prediction after slightly raising or decreasing specific features are observed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T16:35:53Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)
• Learning What Makes a Difference from Counterfactual Examples and Gradient Supervision [57.14468881854616]
  We propose an auxiliary training objective that improves the generalization capabilities of neural networks. We use pairs of minimally-different examples with different labels, a.k.a counterfactual or contrasting examples, which provide a signal indicative of the underlying causal structure of the task. Models trained with this technique demonstrate improved performance on out-of-distribution test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T02:47:49Z)

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.