Generating Counterfactual Explanations Using Cardinality Constraints
2404.07502
0
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces a method for generating counterfactual explanations using cardinality constraints.
- Counterfactual explanations describe how an input would need to change for a model to make a different prediction.
- The proposed approach leverages cardinality constraints to generate plausible and representative counterfactual explanations.
- The method is model-agnostic and can be applied to various machine learning models.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you apply for a loan, but the bank denies your application. You might wonder, "What would I need to change about my application to get approved?" Counterfactual explanations are a way to answer this question. They describe how an input (like your loan application) would need to change for a model (like the bank's decision system) to make a different prediction (approve the loan).
The researchers in this paper developed a new way to generate these counterfactual explanations. Their approach uses "cardinality constraints" to ensure the suggested changes are plausible and representative. For example, the counterfactual explanation might say you need to increase your income by $5,000 and decrease your debt by $10,000 to get approved.
This method is useful because it can work with any machine learning model, not just the specific one that made the original prediction. It provides users with actionable insights about how to change an input to get a desired outcome, which can help improve transparency and trust in these models.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a method for generating counterfactual explanations using cardinality constraints. Counterfactual explanations describe how an input would need to change for a model to make a different prediction. The authors' approach leverages cardinality constraints to ensure the generated counterfactuals are plausible and representative.
The method works by formulating the counterfactual generation as an optimization problem. The objective is to find the smallest set of feature changes that would flip the model's prediction. Cardinality constraints are used to limit the number of features that can be changed, ensuring the counterfactuals are concise and actionable.
The authors evaluate their approach on several benchmark datasets and machine learning models, including logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks. The results show that the generated counterfactuals are more plausible and representative compared to prior methods, as measured by human evaluations and other metrics.
The paper also discusses the connection between cardinality-constrained counterfactuals and knowledge distillation-based model extraction attacks. The authors demonstrate that their counterfactual approach can be used to effectively extract black-box models, highlighting the potential implications for model security and interpretability.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and promising approach for generating counterfactual explanations using cardinality constraints. The authors' key insight of leveraging cardinality constraints to ensure plausibility and representativeness is a valuable contribution to the field of interpretable machine learning.
However, the paper does not address several important limitations and caveats. For example, the authors acknowledge that their method may struggle with highly complex or nonlinear models, and that the generated counterfactuals may not always be actionable for end-users. Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential biases or unintended consequences that could arise from these counterfactual explanations, especially when applied to high-stakes domains like finance or healthcare.
Further research is needed to understand the robustness and reliability of this approach, as well as its broader implications for model interpretability and security. It would be valuable to see the method applied to a wider range of real-world applications and to investigate its performance on diverse datasets and model types.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel method for generating counterfactual explanations using cardinality constraints. The approach is model-agnostic and can be used to provide users with actionable insights about how to change an input to get a desired outcome from a machine learning model.
While the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of interpretable machine learning, it also highlights the need for further research to address the limitations and potential risks of these techniques. As the use of machine learning models becomes more widespread, the ability to explain their decisions and understand their biases will be crucial for building trust and ensuring responsible deployment.
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
🔮
Explaining Text Classifiers with Counterfactual Representations
Pirmin Lemberger, Antoine Saillenfest
0
0
One well motivated explanation method for classifiers leverages counterfactuals which are hypothetical events identical to real observations in all aspects except for one categorical feature. Constructing such counterfactual poses specific challenges for texts, however, as some attribute values may not necessarily align with plausible real-world events. In this paper we propose a simple method for generating counterfactuals by intervening in the space of text representations which bypasses this limitation. We argue that our interventions are minimally disruptive and that they are theoretically sound as they align with counterfactuals as defined in Pearl's causal inference framework. To validate our method, we conducted experiments first on a synthetic dataset and then on a realistic dataset of counterfactuals. This allows for a direct comparison between classifier predictions based on ground truth counterfactuals - obtained through explicit text interventions - and our counterfactuals, derived through interventions in the representation space. Eventually, we study a real world scenario where our counterfactuals can be leveraged both for explaining a classifier and for bias mitigation.
4/30/2024
A Framework for Feasible Counterfactual Exploration incorporating Causality, Sparsity and Density
Kleopatra Markou, Dimitrios Tomaras, Vana Kalogeraki, Dimitrios Gunopulos
0
0
The imminent need to interpret the output of a Machine Learning model with counterfactual (CF) explanations - via small perturbations to the input - has been notable in the research community. Although the variety of CF examples is important, the aspect of them being feasible at the same time, does not necessarily apply in their entirety. This work uses different benchmark datasets to examine through the preservation of the logical causal relations of their attributes, whether CF examples can be generated after a small amount of changes to the original input, be feasible and actually useful to the end-user in a real-world case. To achieve this, we used a black box model as a classifier, to distinguish the desired from the input class and a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) to generate feasible CF examples. As an extension, we also extracted two-dimensional manifolds (one for each dataset) that located the majority of the feasible examples, a representation that adequately distinguished them from infeasible ones. For our experimentation we used three commonly used datasets and we managed to generate feasible and at the same time sparse, CF examples that satisfy all possible predefined causal constraints, by confirming their importance with the attributes in a dataset.
4/23/2024
🎯
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