Ablation Based Counterfactuals

Read original: arXiv:2406.07908 - Published 6/13/2024 by Zheng Dai, David K Gifford

Overview

Presents an ablation-based approach for generating counterfactuals, which are modified versions of an input that lead to a desired output.
Counterfactuals can help explain AI model behavior and enable "what-if" analysis.
The proposed method generates counterfactuals by progressively removing or "ablating" features of the input.

Plain English Explanation

The paper introduces a new way to generate counterfactuals - modified versions of an input that lead to a different output from an AI model. Counterfactuals can be a useful tool for understanding how AI models work and exploring "what-if" scenarios.

The key idea is to start with the original input and then progressively remove or 'ablate' features of that input. At each step, the model checks if the output changes in the desired way. The process continues until a counterfactual is found - an input that is similar to the original but leads to the target output.

This ablation-based approach is contrasted with other methods that generate counterfactuals, such as diffusion-based or concept-guided techniques. The authors argue their method is more effective and efficient at finding high-quality counterfactuals.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents an ablation-based approach for generating counterfactuals. The key steps are:

Identify important features: The model first identifies the most important features of the input that contribute to the current output.
Iteratively ablate features: Starting with the original input, the model iteratively removes or "ablates" the most important features one by one.
Check output changes: After each ablation, the model checks if the output changes in the desired direction. If so, the current input is a counterfactual.
Repeat until counterfactual found: The process continues until a counterfactual is found or a stopping criterion is met.

The authors evaluate their method on various datasets and tasks, including image classification and text classification. They compare their approach to other state-of-the-art counterfactual generation techniques and demonstrate its effectiveness.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a novel and promising approach for generating counterfactuals. However, some potential limitations and areas for further research are:

Scalability: The iterative ablation process may become computationally expensive for high-dimensional inputs or complex models. Efficient optimization techniques could help scale the approach.
Interpretability: While the ablation process provides some insight into important features, the final counterfactuals may still be difficult to interpret, especially for non-expert users.
Generalizability: The authors evaluate their method on a limited set of datasets and tasks. More extensive testing is needed to assess its generalizability across a wider range of applications.
Real-world impact: The paper does not discuss the potential societal implications of counterfactual explanations, such as their use in high-stakes decision-making. Further research is needed to understand the ethical considerations.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel ablation-based approach for generating counterfactuals, which can be a powerful tool for explaining and understanding AI models. The proposed method is shown to be effective compared to other state-of-the-art techniques. While there are some limitations to address, this work represents an important contribution to the field of explainable AI and opens up new avenues for further research and development.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

Ablation Based Counterfactuals

Zheng Dai, David K Gifford

Diffusion models are a class of generative models that generate high-quality samples, but at present it is difficult to characterize how they depend upon their training data. This difficulty raises scientific and regulatory questions, and is a consequence of the complexity of diffusion models and their sampling process. To analyze this dependence, we introduce Ablation Based Counterfactuals (ABC), a method of performing counterfactual analysis that relies on model ablation rather than model retraining. In our approach, we train independent components of a model on different but overlapping splits of a training set. These components are then combined into a single model, from which the causal influence of any training sample can be removed by ablating a combination of model components. We demonstrate how we can construct a model like this using an ensemble of diffusion models. We then use this model to study the limits of training data attribution by enumerating full counterfactual landscapes, and show that single source attributability diminishes with increasing training data size. Finally, we demonstrate the existence of unattributable samples.

6/13/2024

DiffusionCounterfactuals: Inferring High-dimensional Counterfactuals with Guidance of Causal Representations

Jiageng Zhu, Hanchen Xie, Jiazhi Li, Wael Abd-Almageed

Accurate estimation of counterfactual outcomes in high-dimensional data is crucial for decision-making and understanding causal relationships and intervention outcomes in various domains, including healthcare, economics, and social sciences. However, existing methods often struggle to generate accurate and consistent counterfactuals, particularly when the causal relationships are complex. We propose a novel framework that incorporates causal mechanisms and diffusion models to generate high-quality counterfactual samples guided by causal representation. Our approach introduces a novel, theoretically grounded training and sampling process that enables the model to consistently generate accurate counterfactual high-dimensional data under multiple intervention steps. Experimental results on various synthetic and real benchmarks demonstrate the proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods in generating accurate and high-quality counterfactuals, using different evaluation metrics.

7/31/2024

CountARFactuals -- Generating plausible model-agnostic counterfactual explanations with adversarial random forests

Susanne Dandl, Kristin Blesch, Timo Freiesleben, Gunnar Konig, Jan Kapar, Bernd Bischl, Marvin Wright

Counterfactual explanations elucidate algorithmic decisions by pointing to scenarios that would have led to an alternative, desired outcome. Giving insight into the model's behavior, they hint users towards possible actions and give grounds for contesting decisions. As a crucial factor in achieving these goals, counterfactuals must be plausible, i.e., describing realistic alternative scenarios within the data manifold. This paper leverages a recently developed generative modeling technique -- adversarial random forests (ARFs) -- to efficiently generate plausible counterfactuals in a model-agnostic way. ARFs can serve as a plausibility measure or directly generate counterfactual explanations. Our ARF-based approach surpasses the limitations of existing methods that aim to generate plausible counterfactual explanations: It is easy to train and computationally highly efficient, handles continuous and categorical data naturally, and allows integrating additional desiderata such as sparsity in a straightforward manner.

4/5/2024

🎯

Benchmarking Instance-Centric Counterfactual Algorithms for XAI: From White Box to Black Bo

Catarina Moreira, Yu-Liang Chou, Chihcheng Hsieh, Chun Ouyang, Joaquim Jorge, Jo~ao Madeiras Pereira

This study investigates the impact of machine learning models on the generation of counterfactual explanations by conducting a benchmark evaluation over three different types of models: a decision tree (fully transparent, interpretable, white-box model), a random forest (semi-interpretable, grey-box model), and a neural network (fully opaque, black-box model). We tested the counterfactual generation process using four algorithms (DiCE, WatcherCF, prototype, and GrowingSpheresCF) in the literature in 25 different datasets. Our findings indicate that: (1) Different machine learning models have little impact on the generation of counterfactual explanations; (2) Counterfactual algorithms based uniquely on proximity loss functions are not actionable and will not provide meaningful explanations; (3) One cannot have meaningful evaluation results without guaranteeing plausibility in the counterfactual generation. Algorithms that do not consider plausibility in their internal mechanisms will lead to biased and unreliable conclusions if evaluated with the current state-of-the-art metrics; (4) A counterfactual inspection analysis is strongly recommended to ensure a robust examination of counterfactual explanations and the potential identification of biases.

6/12/2024