Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse
Authors: Mattia Cerrato, Otto Sahlgren, Xenia Heilmann
Organizations: Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany · University of Tampere, Finland
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.
This paper proposes ConceptCF, a method for counterfactual generation that operates on human-interpretable concepts. In high-stakes domains such as healthcare and predictive maintenance, artificial intelligence models can increase efficiency and safety. Explainability is key to ensure these models rely on causal relationships rather than spurious correlations. Counterfactual explanations identify minimal modifications that would change a model's predictions. Existing methods for time series operate on individual points or subsequences without ensuring interpretability of the mutations. ConceptCF instead modifies meaningful concepts. As a result we can provide explanations in terms of these concepts, for example ``the model's prediction would be Sit' instead of Walk' if you increase the scale of the movement''. In this paper, the concepts are constructed through time series decomposition, resulting in concepts such as scale, and frequency bands. Counterfactuals are generated using a genetic algorithm that optimizes the concept mutations. Evaluation against five state-of-the-art approaches demonstrates that ConceptCF consistently achieves top-tier performance across validity, confidence, proximity, sparsity and plausibility metrics.
Counterfactual (CF) explanations identify changes that alter an input's classification. While existing methods produce realistic and low-cost CFs, they often fail to ensure feasibility, by suggesting non-constructive modifications or incompatible with future changes (e.g., changing an individual's race to secure a job offer). We introduce a refinement of CF explanations that explicitly enforces feasibility. Our approach is the first to efficiently generate CFs that are realistic, low-cost and feasible. We accommodate both hard feasible constraints, specified by domain knowledge users, and soft feasible constraints, inferred automatically via causal inference from the dataset. Our method, Feasible Counterfactual Explanations (FCx), is based on a modified Variational Autoencoder (VAE) optimized with a multi-factor loss function. We measure the cost of a change based on the absolute change in values (proximity) as well as the number of features changed (sparsity) while realism is measured based on the LOF for density estimation, guaranteeing that CFs reside in densely populated regions. Extensive experiments on four public datasets show that our approach matches state-of-the-art performance across multiple metrics while guaranteeing feasibility.
Kleopatra Markou, Vana Kalogeraki, Dimitrios Gunopulos
Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior. We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes. Across sentiment analysis and natural language inference, we evaluate ten instruction-tuned models from the LLaMA-3 and Qwen-2.5 families, measuring faithfulness, minimality, and alignment with human-annotated rationales. Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality: larger models are substantially more likely to generate counterfactuals that flip their own predictions and target decision-relevant evidence. In contrast, the rationale-guided condition produces edit-minimal counterfactuals that are also more human-aligned. However, it does not consistently improve faithfulness. Overall, counterfactual self-explanations can provide useful behavioral evidence about model decisions, but their reliability depends strongly on model capacity and should be empirically validated rather than assumed.