Actionable CBFI: Integrating Structural Decomposition and Causal Counterfactual Recourse for Tabular Machine Learning

Predictive explanation methods attribute a model output; they do not, by themselves, attribute an intervention effect on the real-world outcome. We introduce the Causal Attribution Score (CAS), a compact score architecture for causal explanation. CAS starts from an identified interventional coalition game, allocates the joint intervention contrast with causal Shapley contributions, and converts those raw outcome-scale effects into Local CAS, Signed Local CAS, and two complementary Global CAS summaries. The innovation is not a new Shapley formula, but a local-to-global causal reporting layer with an explicit intervention target. In the known-truth benchmark, eight repeated primary-interaction simulations (n = 2,200 each, three actions) gave mean Local CAS MAE of 0.107 for coalition-aware CAS, compared with 0.173 for one-at-a-time normalisation and 0.213 for a global normalised absolute ATE vector. The paired advantage over one-at-a-time normalisation increased from -0.003 under additivity to 0.091 under strong interactions. On both empirical DoubleML datasets, 401(k) eligibility/net financial assets (n = 9,915) and Pennsylvania reemployment bonus/unemployment duration (n = 5,099), predictive SHAP/TreeSHAP rankings differed materially from Feature-CAS rankings of treatment-effect modifiers. In Pennsylvania, dep1 (exactly one dependent) moved from predictive global rank 13 to Feature-CAS rank 2 and was the leading local Feature-CAS modifier. These results isolate the added value of separating what predicts the outcome from what explains heterogeneity in an estimated causal effect.

Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over "candidate explanations," a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods identify which features are relevant to a model's predictions but often fail to clarify why certain decisions are made. In this work, we present a novel method that integrates causality with argument-based reasoning to explain why models may be making predictions. Our approach first identifies causal relationships among variables using causal discovery methods and then translates these into a Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) to represent supportive and opposing interactions among features. By using semi-stable semantics, we find extensions of features that explain why certain outcomes may have been chosen. We demonstrate our method on two benchmark datasets and compare its results against standard post-hoc explainability approaches.