Counterfactual Explanations and the Scope of Contestability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24562v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:45:16 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual Explanations and the Scope of Contestability
• Abstract summary: This paper is about how agency can be reinstated by the provision of certain kinds of knowledge.<n>We discuss whether a specific type of explanation, counterfactual explanations, facilitates our ability to contest algorithmic decisions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The automation of consequential decisions through opaque machine learning models in societal domains impedes our agency. This paper is about how agency can be reinstated by the provision of certain kinds of knowledge. More precisely, we discuss whether a specific type of explanation, counterfactual explanations, facilitates our ability to contest algorithmic decisions. Against this backdrop, our paper makes three contributions: First, we develop an account of contestability, where contestability is defined as the provision of information, sufficient for a decision-subject to use as a basis for demanding that a decision be revoked. We also demarcate contestability from adjacent concepts in the discourse surrounding the right to explanation, such as justification and recourse. Second, we examine to what extent counterfactual explanations are conducive to contestability by considering a variety of failure modes causing problematic algorithmic decisions and scrutinize to what extent counterfactual explanations help us detect the underlying errors. Third, we propose ways in which, with certain modifications, counterfactual explanations can be made more fitting to serve the desired function. In this vein, we sketch the contours of a multi-shot approach to counterfactuals, where decision-subjects can query a model to test their own counterfactuals for a (limited) number of times.

Related papers

• Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse [4.001780301402232]
  Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI)<n>This paper explores the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings.<n>We find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T15:24:19Z)
• Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability [3.135152720206845]
  We propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse.<n>We identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards.<n>We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T15:14:13Z)
• Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMs [58.620269228776294]
  We propose a task-agnostic framework for resolving ambiguity by asking users clarifying questions. We evaluate systems across three NLP applications: question answering, machine translation and natural language inference. We find that intent-sim is robust, demonstrating improvements across a wide range of NLP tasks and LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T00:18:50Z)
• Explainable Data-Driven Optimization: From Context to Decision and Back Again [76.84947521482631]
  Data-driven optimization uses contextual information and machine learning algorithms to find solutions to decision problems with uncertain parameters. We introduce a counterfactual explanation methodology tailored to explain solutions to data-driven problems. We demonstrate our approach by explaining key problems in operations management such as inventory management and routing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T15:25:16Z)
• Explaining $\mathcal{ELH}$ Concept Descriptions through Counterfactual Reasoning [3.5323691899538128]
  An intrinsically transparent way to do classification is by using concepts in description logics. One solution is to employ counterfactuals to answer the question, How must feature values be changed to obtain a different classification?''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T16:06:06Z)
• 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)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations in Sequential Decision Making Under Uncertainty [27.763369810430653]
  We develop methods to find counterfactual explanations for sequential decision making processes. In our problem formulation, the counterfactual explanation specifies an alternative sequence of actions differing in at most k actions. We show that our algorithm finds can provide valuable insights to enhance decision making under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-06T17:38:19Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)
• Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventions [16.9979815165902]
  We argue that counterfactual explanations inform an individual where they need to get to, but not how to get there. Instead, we propose a shift of paradigm from recourse via nearest counterfactual explanations to recourse through minimal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-14T22:49:42Z)
• Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach [11.871523410051527]
  We consider an explanation as a set of the system's data inputs that causally drives the decision. We show that features that have a large importance weight for a model prediction may not affect the corresponding decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-21T09:58:58Z)

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.