We present our submission to the IJCAI 2025 'Counterfactual Routing Competition' (CRC 25). The goal of the competition is to find counterfactual explanations for the shortest path problem. This requires deciding what the minimal changes to a road network would make a route chosen by the user the optimal route. This enables explanations such as "Your suggested route would indeed have been optimal, if road X were not a bicycle path." Our solution models the problem as an integer program, iteratively incorporating constraints until an exact solution is found. In the final evaluation on held-out test instances, our method ranked fourth in solution quality and obtained its solution fastest on every instance, with an average runtime of 9.0 seconds compared to 118.8 seconds for the next-fastest submission.
We give an attribution method for neural combinatorial-optimisation (CO) policies that (i) decomposes a decision by constraint families via LP-relaxation duals, (ii) certifies counterfactuals through a combinatorial feasibility model (implemented as a CSP feasibility-decision model), and (iii) bounds the size of a PAC-sufficient explanation with a Bonferroni-corrected Hoeffding sufficient-subset test along a greedy ordering. Across three CO problems and three seeds, our LP-anchored Λ-attribution matches the CF-derived signal at 96.5% on CVRPTW (n_cert=344) and 77.2% on the Orienteering Problem (n_cert=281) vs 75.0% and 35.2% for proxy gradient (paired diffs +0.215 and +0.420; McNemar exact p≤10−14). In the rank-aligned regime of the Flexible Job-Shop Scheduling Problem, both backends agree on every CSP-certified flip (n_cert=59), confirming the no-gain prediction. Bonferroni-PAC subsets average 5.0 nodes per step (M=70, ε=δ=0.2, kmax=25). Reference implementation: https://github.com/sohaibafifi/neuro-co-cax
Trust in counterfactual explanations depends critically on whether their recommended changes are truly minimal: suboptimal explanations may vastly overshoot the actual changes needed to alter a decision, and heuristic errors can affect individuals unevenly, giving some users relevant recourse while assigning others unnecessarily costly recommendations. Consequently, we study the problem of computing optimal counterfactual explanations for tree ensembles under plausibility and actionability constraints. This is a combinatorial problem: for a fixed model, counterfactual search boils down to selecting consistent branching decisions and threshold-defined regions under a distance objective. We exploit this structure through CPCF, a constraint programming (CP) formulation in which numerical features are encoded as interval domains induced by split thresholds, while discrete features retain native finite-domain representations. This yields a compact finite-domain formulation that supports multiple distance objectives without continuous split-boundary search. We then place CPCF in a broader comparison across mathematical programming paradigms: we extend a maximum Boolean satisfiability (MaxSAT) formulation, originally designed for hard-voting random forests, to soft-voting ensembles, and compare against the current state-of-the-art mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) optimal approach. Across ten datasets and three types of tree ensembles, we analyze scalability, anytime performance, and sensitivity to distance metrics. We observe that CP achieves the best overall performance. More importantly, our results identify regimes in which the specific strengths of each paradigm make it best suited: CP is most versatile overall, MaxSAT handles hard-voting ensembles particularly well, and MILP remains competitive in amortized inference settings with a moderate number of split levels.
Constructive neural routing solvers usually score the next action by matching a decoder context to candidate embeddings, hiding deterministic one-step consequences such as travel, waiting, slack, and capacity changes. We propose LINC (Local Inference via Normed Comparison), a decoder-side candidate decision architecture that computes these consequences explicitly. LINC uses them according to their decision role: centered relative consequences are compared by a shared linear local scorer, while feasible-set summaries modulate the decoder context. This preserves standard global matching and relieves the hidden state from rediscovering transition arithmetic. The Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows (CVRPTW) serves as the main constrained-routing stress test; the same interface extends to the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP) and Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). In particular, for CVRPTW, LINC reduces PolyNet's Solomon/Homberger gaps from 13.83%/38.15% to 7.26%/14.71%; for TSP and CVRP, it also improves external-benchmark gaps.