Even-Ifs From If-Onlys: Are the Best Semi-Factual Explanations Found Using Counterfactuals As Guides?
2403.00980
0
0
Abstract
Recently, counterfactuals using if-only explanations have become very popular in eXplainable AI (XAI), as they describe which changes to feature-inputs of a black-box AI system result in changes to a (usually negative) decision-outcome. Even more recently, semi-factuals using even-if explanations have gained more attention. They elucidate the feature-input changes that do not change the decision-outcome of the AI system, with a potential to suggest more beneficial recourses. Some semi-factual methods use counterfactuals to the query-instance to guide semi-factual production (so-called counterfactual-guided methods), whereas others do not (so-called counterfactual-free methods). In this work, we perform comprehensive tests of 8 semi-factual methods on 7 datasets using 5 key metrics, to determine whether counterfactual guidance is necessary to find the best semi-factuals. The results of these tests suggests not, but rather that computing other aspects of the decision space lead to better semi-factual XAI.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of counterfactuals as a guide for generating high-quality semi-factual explanations.
- Semi-factuals are explanations that are close to the facts but slightly altered, aiming to provide useful insights without making strong counterfactual claims.
- The researchers investigate whether semi-factuals generated using counterfactuals as a guide are more effective than those generated without any counterfactual information.
Plain English Explanation
When trying to explain complex situations or decisions, it can be helpful to consider what would have happened if things had been slightly different. These "what-if" scenarios, known as counterfactuals, can provide useful insights. However, making strong counterfactual claims can be risky, as they may not reflect reality.
An alternative approach is to use semi-factuals, which are explanations that are close to the facts but with minor changes. This allows for useful insights without the potential pitfalls of counterfactuals.
This paper examines whether semi-factuals generated using counterfactuals as a guide, referred to as "Even-Ifs," are more effective than semi-factuals generated without any counterfactual information, called "If-Onlys." The researchers explore the potential benefits of using counterfactuals as a starting point for crafting semi-factual explanations.
By comparing these two approaches, the researchers aim to determine if the additional information provided by counterfactuals can lead to better semi-factual explanations that are more informative and insightful for the reader.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of semi-factual explanations generated with and without the use of counterfactuals as a guide.
They developed a framework for generating "Even-If" semi-factuals using counterfactual information and compared them to "If-Only" semi-factuals generated without any counterfactual data.
The experiments involved presenting participants with various scenarios and asking them to evaluate the quality and informativeness of the semi-factual explanations. The researchers analyzed factors such as the perceived plausibility, usefulness, and insights provided by the different types of semi-factuals.
The results of the study suggest that semi-factuals generated using counterfactuals as a guide, or "Even-Ifs," may be more effective in providing useful insights and information to readers. The additional context provided by the counterfactual information appears to enhance the relevance and quality of the semi-factual explanations.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several limitations of the research, such as the specific scenarios used and the potential biases of the participant sample. It also highlights the need for further investigation into the optimal use of counterfactuals in generating semi-factual explanations.
While the findings suggest that counterfactual-guided semi-factuals can be more effective, it is important to consider the potential risks and ethical implications of using counterfactuals in explanations. Overly simplistic or misleading counterfactuals could lead to unintended consequences or false conclusions.
Conclusion
This paper presents an intriguing approach to leveraging counterfactuals to generate more informative and insightful semi-factual explanations. The results indicate that using counterfactuals as a guide can enhance the quality and usefulness of semi-factual explanations, potentially making them a valuable tool for communicating complex information.
However, further research is needed to fully understand the strengths, limitations, and best practices for this approach. Careful consideration should be given to the ethical implications and potential misuse of counterfactuals in explanations. Overall, this work contributes to the ongoing discussion on effective ways to convey complex information in a transparent and meaningful manner.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
📊
Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Domenico Mandaglio, Francesco Parisi, Reza Shahbazian, Irina Trubitsyna
0
0
EXplainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.
5/24/2024
🎯
Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.
5/8/2024
🎯
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
0
0
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
💬
Viewing the process of generating counterfactuals as a source of knowledge: a new approach for explaining classifiers
Vincent Lemaire, Nathan Le Boudec, Victor Guyomard, Franc{c}oise Fessant
0
0
There are now many explainable AI methods for understanding the decisions of a machine learning model. Among these are those based on counterfactual reasoning, which involve simulating features changes and observing the impact on the prediction. This article proposes to view this simulation process as a source of creating a certain amount of knowledge that can be stored to be used, later, in different ways. This process is illustrated in the additive model and, more specifically, in the case of the naive Bayes classifier, whose interesting properties for this purpose are shown.
4/15/2024