Machine learning models can achieve strong test performance while relying on demographic or acquisition-related shortcuts. We propose counterfactual (CF) marginalisation as a test-time evaluation procedure for assessing robustness of classification models to such variables. Given a CF image generator, we intervene on nuisance parent variables such as age or sex, generate CF versions of each test image, and average predictions over a target intervention distribution. This produces intervention-aware predictions that marginalise demographic effects while preserving patient-specific latent information. We use these predictions to define metrics for CF risk, calibration, stability and worst-case sensitivity. We demonstrate this framework's utility for quantitative robustness evaluation.
Generative models for counterfactual outcomes have great potential to support decision-making under complex interventions, but existing approaches are limited by unstable estimation, poor generalization across environments, and bias from nuisance model misspecification. We introduce ADIGen, a framework for automatic, debiased, and invariant counterfactual generation under general interventions, including high-dimensional interventions and outcomes. ADIGen combines Riesz regression to avoid unstable density-ratio estimation, causal invariance to improve generalization under distribution shift, and orthogonal statistical learning to obtain doubly robust guarantees against nuisance model misspecification. We provide excess-risk bounds showing that ADIGen controls counterfactual risk under general interventions, with a product-bias nuisance remainder and an invariant risk bound across environments.
Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) are essential for interpreting black-box models, yet they often become invalid when models are slightly changed. Existing methods for generating robust CFEs are often limited to specific types of models, require costly tuning, or inflexible robustness controls. We propose a novel approach that jointly models the data distribution and the space of plausible model decisions to ensure robustness to model changes. Using a probabilistic consensus over a model ensemble, we train a conditional normalizing flow that captures the data density under varying levels of classifier agreement. At inference time, a single interpretable parameter controls the robustness level; it specifies the minimum fraction of models that should agree on the target class without retraining the generative model. Our method effectively pushes CFEs toward regions that are both plausible and stable across model changes. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach achieves superior empirical robustness while also maintaining good performance across other evaluation measures.
Predictive machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to aid human decision-makers across various high-risk domains such as healthcare and criminal justice. There is a growing recognition of the need to evaluate the causal impact of deploying these systems on downstream outcomes, such as patient survival or crime recidivism. Randomized control trials (RCTs) can provide high-quality evidence on the impact of a deployed model, but they run into a challenge: it is often infeasible to run repeated trials when models are updated or retrained to improve predictive performance. In this work, we present a partial-identification approach to using prior RCT data to construct bounds on the causal effect of a new model. The core innovation in our approach is to leverage assumptions relating fine-grained predictive accuracy to downstream outcomes. We do so via two monotonicity assumptions: first, on individual-level `counterfactual correctness' (all else being equal, a correct prediction leads to non-inferior outcomes); and second, on the relation between subgroup predictive performance and outcomes, interpretable as an assumption regarding trust in model outputs. We demonstrate our method with a simulation study, illustrating how incorporating this information can lead to more informative bounds compared to prior work.