Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30956v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:24:19 GMT
• Title: Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.001780301402232
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

Related papers

• Counterfactual Explanations and the Scope of Contestability [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T13:45:16Z)
• DecisionFlow: Advancing Large Language Model as Principled Decision Maker [49.088778182807395]
  DecisionFlow is a novel decision modeling framework that guides models to reason over structured representations of actions, attributes, and constraints.<n>Rather than predicting answers directly from prompts, DecisionFlow builds a semantically grounded decision space and infers a latent utility function.<n> Empirical results show that DecisionFlow achieves up to 30% accuracy gains over strong prompting baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T16:23:53Z)
• Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey [74.17203483365171]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) significantly improve the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) by learning to reason.<n>However, their deliberative reasoning process leads to inefficiencies in token usage, memory consumption, and inference time.<n>This survey provides a review of efficient inference methods designed specifically for LRMs, focusing on mitigating token inefficiency while preserving the reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T13:27:46Z)
• Refining Counterfactual Explanations With Joint-Distribution-Informed Shapley Towards Actionable Minimality [6.770853093478073]
  Counterfactual explanations (CE) identify data points that closely resemble the observed data but produce different machine learning (ML) model outputs. Existing CE methods often lack actionable efficiency because of unnecessary feature changes included within the explanations. We propose a method that minimizes the required feature changes while maintaining the validity of CE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T18:31:19Z)
• Demystifying Reinforcement Learning in Production Scheduling via Explainable AI [0.7515066610159392]
  Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) is a frequently employed technique to solve scheduling problems. Although DRL agents ace at delivering viable results in short computing times, their reasoning remains opaque. We apply two explainable AI (xAI) frameworks to describe the reasoning behind scheduling decisions of a specialized DRL agent in a flow production.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T09:39:01Z)
• CFGs: Causality Constrained Counterfactual Explanations using goal-directed ASP [1.5749416770494706]
  We present the framework CFGs, CounterFactual Generation with s(CASP), which utilizes the goal-directed Answer Set Programming (ASP) system s(CASP) to automatically generate counterfactual explanations. We show how CFGs navigates between these worlds, namely, go from our initial state where we obtain an undesired outcome to the imagined goal state where we obtain the desired decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T21:47:58Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Introducing User Feedback-based Counterfactual Explanations (UFCE) [49.1574468325115]
  Counterfactual explanations (CEs) have emerged as a viable solution for generating comprehensible explanations in XAI. UFCE allows for the inclusion of user constraints to determine the smallest modifications in the subset of actionable features. UFCE outperforms two well-known CE methods in terms of textitproximity, textitsparsity, and textitfeasibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T20:09:44Z)
• Leaving the Nest: Going Beyond Local Loss Functions for Predict-Then-Optimize [57.22851616806617]
  We show that our method achieves state-of-the-art results in four domains from the literature. Our approach outperforms the best existing method by nearly 200% when the localness assumption is broken.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T11:17:45Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Decomposing Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decision Making [11.17545155325116]
  We develop a novel and practical recourse framework that bridges the gap between the IMF and the strong causal assumptions. texttt generates recourses by disentangling the latent representation of co-varying features. Our experiments on real-world data corroborate our theoretically motivated recourse model and highlight our framework's ability to provide reliable, low-cost recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T21:26:55Z)
• Prescriptive Machine Learning for Automated Decision Making: Challenges and Opportunities [0.0]
  Recent applications of machine learning (ML) reveal a noticeable shift from its use for predictive modeling to its use for prescriptive modeling. prescriptive modeling comes with new technical conditions for learning and new demands regarding reliability, responsibility, and the ethics of decision making. To support the data-driven design of decision-making agents that act in a rational but at the same time responsible manner, a rigorous methodological foundation of prescriptive ML is needed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T17:02:07Z)

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.