Robust to Which Model Change? A Unified Evaluation of Robust Counterfactual Explanations

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.

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.

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent work incorporates additional properties such as sparsity, actionability and plausibility. Despite this progress, fair and systematic evaluation remains challenging. Existing studies often rely on different data splits, predictive models, and evaluation metrics, which limits objective comparison across methods. To fill this gap, we introduce CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation. CEL includes 18 datasets of varying size and complexity and provides implementations or reimplementations of 14 widely used counterfactual methods. Using this standardized setup, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative comparison across a variety of methods on datasets that differ in size, number, and types of attributes. The evaluation protocol incorporates multiple complementary metrics capturing validity, coverage, sparsity, proximity, and distributional plausibility, including density- and outlier-based measures to assess the realism of generated counterfactuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework. While prior libraries and benchmarking efforts exist in the literature, many are outdated, limited in scope, or lack consistent evaluation protocols. The proposed benchmark aims to improve reproducibility, enable fair comparison, and establish a workbench for the development of future counterfactual explanation methods.