Counterfactual Explanations

End-to-end autonomous driving models are now able to navigate complex road scenarios, mapping raw sensor observations directly to observed paths for open-loop evaluation and often effective driving in closed-loop evaluation. Yet the internal logic of these safety-critical systems remains largely opaque, due to the complexity of traffic scenes. We propose a counterfactual ablation framework called Counterfactual Vision Action Analysis (CVAA) that systematically removes individual detected objects from front-camera images using photorealistic generative inpainting to prepare counterfactual sets to evaluate the difference in the model's response. This isolates the causal effect of each object's presence on the model's planning behaviour. Applied to the Alpamayo 1 trajectory predictor across 210 nuScenes driving scenes, we create a dataset Counter -nuScenes, using which we see that vehicles and pedestrians within the model's 'path' dominate causal influence as expected, while traffic lights, as expected, exert disproportionate effect relative to their image footprint. However, we also find cases where the model responds strongly to objects a human driver would consider irrelevant. This brings forth a deeper question: does the model itself view the scene as a sum of individual objects influencing the outcome, or does it encode an entirely different set of internal features that do not correspond to human-legible scene elements? To further understand this, we compare intermediate representations of original and inpainted image pairs using mechanistic interpretability techniques and examine the effect of the removal through the various model layers. Together, these two stages offer a path from behavioral auditing to representational understanding, creating explainable driving systems and solidifying human-AI trust.

Counterfactual explanations provide local, interpretable insight by identifying changes to an input that would alter its assigned outcome. Although well established in supervised learning, their extension to clustering is less direct, since cluster assignments are unlabeled and governed by the geometry of the partition. This paper introduces VoICE, a Voronoi-Induced Counterfactual Explainability framework for feature-weighted $k$-means clustering. Rather than treating cluster change as a crossing of a single pairwise centroid boundary, VoICE formulates counterfactual generation as projection onto the full weighted Voronoi region of a target cluster, incorporating feature weights directly into both the clustering geometry and the counterfactual objective to yield least-cost and parsimonious explanations under actionability constraints. Target regions are further intersected with data-derived bounds and homothetically contracted towards their centroids, limiting extrapolation and boundary sensitivity. VoICE consistently produces valid target-cluster membership, across several benchmark datasets, where the leading pairwise baseline does not.

Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) requires models to identify sentiment toward specific aspects rather than relying on the global polarity of a sentence. This makes counterfactual evaluation especially challenging: a valid counterfactual should flip the sentiment of one target aspect while preserving the sentiment of all non-target aspects, semantic meaning, fluency, and factual consistency. Existing counterfactual generation methods often focus on sentence-level label flipping and may produce edits that are fluent but aspect-invalid, semantically drifting, or contradictory. To address this limitation, we propose CAVE-ABSA, a Constraint-Aware Validated Editing framework for generating and validating aspect-level counterfactuals. CAVE-ABSA localizes the opinion span associated with the target aspect, performs controlled counterfactual rewriting, refines candidates through a repair module, and filters them using aspect-level verification, semantic similarity, AMR-guided structural preservation, edit minimality, fluency, and contradiction detection. The framework is designed to construct validated counterfactual ABSA datasets for robustness evaluation and data augmentation. By explicitly separating generation from validation, CAVE-ABSA provides a principled approach for producing meaningful aspect-local counterfactuals and for testing whether ABSA models truly rely on aspect-grounded sentiment reasoning.

In this work, we propose a unified approach for diagnosing misclassification and assessing the robustness of black-box classifiers. Central to our method is an optimization framework that modifies an instance so that the classifier predicts a specified target label, while ensuring that the modification remains easily explainable. The objective function contains two components: an explainability-aware $L_0$ (XA-$L_0$) penalty that promotes sparse and interpretable modifications, and a classifier loss objective that steers the perturbed instance toward the desired output. This integrated optimization formulation is used both to identify the underlying causes of misclassification and to evaluate robustness by determining how an instance can change within a tolerance region before being reassigned to another class. To quantify robustness, we introduce the Tolerance Region Confusion Matrix (TOR-Confusion Matrix), which measures a classifier's susceptibility by modeling the class-to-class transition probabilities induced by tolerance-bounded perturbations. We validate the proposed method on both image and tabular datasets, demonstrating its ability to jointly deliver interpretability and robustness assessment.

Neural autoregressive solvers for the Multi-Attribute Vehicle Routing Problem (MAVRP) reach competitive cost but offer no per-step justification, a problem when dispatchers must validate, accept, or compare them. We open two complementary black boxes in one protocol. On the encoder side, linear probes, spontaneous-organization metrics, rank-based richness measures, and discovered-direction analyses with intervention validation characterize how the latent represents constraint families at the graph, node, and edge level. On the decoder side, three attribution methods (gradient, integrated gradients, DeepLIFT) feed three reading angles: abductive, contrastive against the best feasible alternative, and counterfactual (smallest input change that switches the action or restores feasibility). Explanations are scored on fidelity, concentration, stability, sanity, and actionability. Across six variants combining three encoders (Attention baseline, Unimp, UnimpMoe) with two decoders (Hard-Mask, Recourse), we find that graph inductive bias improves both representational predictability and decoder sanity, that the Mixture-of-Experts encoder represents constraints in a distributed rather than axis-aligned way, and that the Recourse training regime, not merely its softer mask, produces policies that represent infeasibility usefully, exposing make-feasible counterfactuals that Hard-Mask policies fail to produce even when fed infeasible alternatives externally.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) for multivariate time-series classifiers are often difficult to interpret in domains where experts reason in terms of semantic feature groups rather than individual channels. In rehabilitation movement analysis with multi-sensor inertial measurement units (IMUs), clinicians interpret motion through muscle-group and joint-segment abstractions; yet, most existing counterfactual methods operate at the channel level, producing scattered and biomechanically incoherent explanations. We propose a two-stage framework for group-based counterfactual generation in high-dimensional IMU data. We first show that Shapley-Adaptive (SA) group ranking preserves counterfactual validity but fails to enforce group-level sparsity, motivating the need for explicit group selection. We then introduce Learnable Gate (LG) methods, which incorporate trainable per-group relevance gates jointly optimized with perturbation masks. Experiments on the KneE-PAD rehabilitation dataset demonstrate that LG substantially improves modality-group sparsity compared to the channel-level M-CELS baseline while maintaining or improving validity, temporal smoothness, and generation efficiency. Exercise-specific analyses further show that group-structured counterfactuals yield concise, muscle-level corrective guidance aligned with clinical reasoning. Overall, the proposed framework enhances interpretability without sacrificing counterfactual quality, enabling more actionable explanations for rehabilitation movement analysis.

Counterfactual explanation (CE) is widely used to enhance the interpretability of machine learning models and support data-driven decision-making based on model predictions. However, existing CE methods typically require two exogenously specified inputs: a desired output value (target) and a distance function that quantifies changes in explanatory variables. In regression settings, neither the validity of target specification nor the practical interpretation of the distance metric has been sufficiently addressed. Furthermore, most existing CE methods focus on altering predictions rather than optimizing a decision objective, even though real-world decision-making often requires explicit objective maximization. To address these limitations, we formulate CE as a profit maximization problem in management and marketing contexts and propose a framework termed profit-based counterfactual explanation (PBCE). PBCE eliminates the need for exogenous target specification by directly maximizing profit as the primary optimization objective. Concurrently, the distance term is reinterpreted as the cost of modifying product attributes, providing a clear and economically grounded interpretation.

When does training language models (LMs) to generate explanations of their predictions yield faithful introspection, rather than superficial imitation? We study LMs trained to explain which features of their inputs influenced their behavior, using models' counterfactual behavior on modified inputs as supervision. Surprisingly, we find that LMs trained on fixed counterfactual explanations derived from earlier checkpoints of themselves, or even from behaviorally similar models in different families, frequently produce explanations more faithful to their own current behaviors than to those of their training targets. This "introspective" coupling between LM explanations and behaviors occurs when training explanations remain sufficiently correlated with current behaviors over the course of training, even as behaviors themselves shift. We also show that introspective coupling tracks behavior shifts: when explanation training is provided concurrently with other post-training objectives, explanations track those shifts without requiring updated supervision. This phenomenon appears in multiple tasks, including sycophancy and refusal, and is robust to label noise. Overall, our results show that even fixed datasets of counterfactual explanations can provide scalable and generalizable post-training signal for introspection.

Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.

We propose a predict-optimize-explain framework that uses gradient-based sample generation to interpret various portfolio models by identifying macroeconomic conditions that induce specified portfolio outcomes. Unlike traditional feature-importance methods, this approach directly probes decision pipelines (predictive models coupled with portfolio optimization) by constructing economically meaningful what-if questions. We focus on four such questions: under what macroeconomic conditions a predict-then-optimize pipeline closes or reverses its return gap with a predict-and-optimize pipeline; what conditions lead a pipeline to diversify rather than concentrate its allocation; when a pipeline trained on calm markets overtakes one trained through crises; and what conditions would let a pipeline match a benchmark return. These examples illustrate how our framework uncovers key behavioral differences between various decision pipelines. Beyond these cases, the proposed framework is flexible and can support a wide range of probing questions tailored to specific portfolio objectives. Our findings highlight the value of integrating prediction, optimization, and explanation to produce more robust and transparent portfolio strategies.

In this study, we propose a novel pipeline for generic, model-agnostic, local-level counterfactual explainability in graph neural networks (GNNs). Although counterfactual explainers capable of both adding and removing edges have emerged in recent years, the need for generic and efficient solutions remains unmet, particularly concerning qualitative explanation generation. Our approach couples progress in factual explainability with missing edge prediction models rooted in link prediction research, in order to enhance the quality, robustness and intuitiveness of explanations. A multi-faceted experimental analysis conducted on real-world and synthetic graph classification benchmarks, both binary and multi-label, demonstrates the advancements in comparison to state-of-the-art baselines across diverse metrics.

Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision. However, decision-makers often rely not only on predicted labels but also on confidence thresholds and risk margins. Counterfactuals that barely cross a decision boundary can be fragile and unstable under noise or model variation. In this paper, we propose Target-confidence Recourse Using tSeTlin machines (TRUST), a framework in which users explicitly specify the desired prediction confidence for recourse. Rather than generating counterfactuals and evaluating confidence afterward, TRUST directly searches for minimal changes that satisfy a user-defined confidence target, enabling comparison of recourse options in terms of cost, confidence, and robustness. We instantiate TRUST using a Probabilistic Tsetlin Machine (PTM) combined with Bayesian optimization. The probabilistic clause-based structure of PTM links prediction confidence to the stability of decision rules. We show that counterfactuals satisfying the same rules can still differ substantially in reliability depending on how securely they satisfy those rules, revealing whether decisions are supported by robust or fragile clause activations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that target-confidence counterfactuals produce more robust and interpretable recourse than conventional boundary-based approaches. Across multiple benchmarks, TRUST achieves perfect robustness while maintaining low recourse cost, including an L2 distance of 0.10 on the Haberman dataset at 0.92 confidence. By explicitly controlling confidence and exposing rule-level stability, TRUST provides actionable recourse for high-stakes decision support.

The increasing use of machine learning algorithms in social applications has raised concerns about fairness and transparency, leading to the development of counterfactual explanations. These explanations supports individuals to understand and potentially alter unfavorable decisions in areas such as loan applications, job selections, and more, by providing actionable changes to input features that would lead to a desired outcome. Existing methods often struggle to balance feasibility, plausibility, and computational efficiency. To address this, we introduce P$^2$CE, an algorithm for generating plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations, offering users a diverse set of optimal trade-offs between different notions of feasibility. P$^2$CE employs an auxiliary isolation forest outlier detector to ensure that explanations are in accordance with the data distribution and leverages SHAP values to obtain optimal results with short computing times, regardless of the underlying model. Our algorithm was empirically evaluated on three datasets, demonstrating superior performance in terms of both solution quality and computational efficiency compared to related techniques.

Decision-making with deep learning-based time series forecasting requires not only accurate predictions but also actionable insights. However, current architectures do not inherently provide such information. Specifically, guidance is needed on how current conditions must be modified to shift from a predicted outcome to a desired future scenario. Counterfactual explanations provide a natural framework for this task, as they represent minimal input changes that alter the model's prediction, indicating when and how intervention is required. Existing approaches rely on instance-wise optimization, leading to inconsistency across instances, high computational costs, and limited applicability in real-time settings. To address these limitations, we reformulate counterfactual generation for time series forecasting as the problem of learning a globally consistent intervention strategy, allowing counterfactuals to be generated through a single shared function. We propose Counterfactual Time Series Explanations (ConTex), a model-agnostic, decomposed architecture comprising a temporal context encoder and a conditional encoder, followed by two heads that capture interventions in terms of temporal relevance and modification strength. This structure overcomes the instability and inconsistency of instance-based approaches by producing targeted, interpretable interventions across time and feature dimensions in a single forward pass, making it suitable for real-time applications. Across multiple forecasting architectures and benchmark datasets, ConTex achieves state-of-the-art validity while generating sparse counterfactuals that minimize the number of necessary interventions. Additionally, our approach reduces computational cost by at least 12-36x compared to instance-wise generation and supports real-time inference at approximately 0.007 seconds.

Multimodal models can name the action units (AUs) behind a facial emotion, but their AU->emotion rationales are typically plausible rather than faithful: nothing forces the AUs a model invokes to be the AUs that actually drive its prediction. We cast AU->emotion reasoning as a counterfactual-consistency problem between the rationale, the label, and a structural AU->emotion causal graph G, and propose FACR, which grounds the reasoner in an independently induced, polarity-aware G and trains a counterfactual-faithfulness objective: a do-intervention on an AU that G marks causal for a class must move the prediction, while one it marks irrelevant must leave it unchanged. Faithfulness is thereby both trainable and measurable through a matching interventional metric, which we evaluate against a known causal structure, the PSPI pain-AU composition, as no existing affective-reasoning benchmark allows. We are explicit that this metric tests fidelity to the supplied structure rather than its rediscovery: it asks whether the trained reasoner invokes the AUs the structure marks causal, on held-out subjects and a second dataset. Under subject-independent evaluation on UNBC-PAIN, the objective raises the agreement between the invoked AUs and the PSPI composition from a no-objective baseline of 0.08 to 0.57, at a small detection cost; an unfaithfulness control attributes the gain to the objective. On a cross-dataset emotion transfer, the objective likewise raises fidelity to G on a seven-class task (0.50 to 0.84). Finally, we attach a language verbalizer and extend the audit to the generated text: biasing each action unit's emission by its latent activation makes the rationale faithful by construction, so that ablating an AU removes it from the explanation, a property that transfers to a second language-model backbone, whereas a freely generated rationale is unfaithful.

How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.

Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model. In practice, affected individuals often benefit from multiple feasible alternatives rather than a single optimal explanation. A natural way to produce such alternatives is to prompt large language models (LLMs). However, prompting incurs a practical constraint: the number of LLM calls is often the dominant computational and economic cost. Together, the need for multiple alternatives and this cost constraint shift the problem from finding a single high-quality counterfactual to efficiently generating a set of oracle-validated counterfactuals under a fixed LLM-call budget. In this work, we study counterfactual recourse generation in the LLM-agentic setting as a fixed-budget search problem and propose Recourse Monte Carlo Tree Search (ReCo-MCTS), an agentic tree-search framework that aims to increase the yield of unique, oracle-validated counterfactuals under this budget while accounting for the extent of the required changes. ReCo-MCTS combines LLM-based multi-candidate generation, constraint checking, black-box oracle evaluation, and UCT-guided tree search to accumulate valid counterfactuals under a fixed LLM-call budget. On four real-world tabular datasets, ReCo-MCTS returns more counterfactuals than the evaluated baselines in our main comparison under the specified resource limits, with trade-offs in the extent of the required changes.

Counterfactuals are typically used in high-stakes decision areas to explain a machine learning model by showing how changes to the user profiles result in the desired outcome. However, explaining the model's decisions through counterfactuals can also be exploited by an adversary to conduct privacy attacks against the model or its training data. Drawing on the analogy that counterfactuals provide realistic substitutes for real training data, similar to synthetic data, we demonstrate in this paper how it is possible to successfully perform privacy attacks on counterfactuals by drawing on the attacks developed against synthetic data. More precisely, we investigate the effectiveness of the membership inference attacks designed for synthetic data on various types of counterfactuals. Additionally, while existing membership inference attacks against counterfactuals usually require to be able to query the model, we show how it is possible to perform successful membership inference attacks using only a set of counterfactuals, with no access to the model from which they are generated. Our results demonstrate that model developers should be more cautious when releasing counterfactuals to various users, as it can lead to a privacy breach.

Counterfactual explanations seek small, semantically meaningful changes to an input that alter a model's prediction, and are widely used to interpret and audit machine learning systems. In modern vision, language, and multimodal systems, pretrained encoders map inputs to representation spaces, and downstream classifier heads impose decision boundaries within those spaces. As a result, the feasibility and distance of nearby counterfactuals depend on boundary placement relative to the data. Yet models with similar predictive performance can differ substantially in whether such changes are achievable and how far representations must move. This work examines this variation using a standardized local search probe across several pretrained encoders and linear classifier heads. Results show that despite similar predictive performance, models differ substantially in their counterfactual behavior. Under fixed representations, varying only the classifier head alters counterfactual outcomes while leaving predictive performance largely unchanged. This variation is explained by the interaction of decision-boundary proximity and local data support, which jointly determine whether prediction changes are both feasible and lie in regions supported by the data, and can also improve counterfactual search within fixed models. Together, these findings identify counterfactual behavior as a distinct dimension beyond predictive performance and show that it can be altered without changing accuracy, with implications for model selection, robustness, and the reliability of counterfactual methods.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are closely associated with the early Alzheimer's disease continuum, where accurate and explainable diagnosis is important for early risk assessment and intervention. Existing connectome-based deep learning models can improve classification performance but often provide limited insight into disease-related functional and structural connectivity changes. This paper proposes an atlas-knowledge-guided Generative Counterfactual Attention-guided Network (GCAN) for explainable cognitive decline diagnosis using multimodal brain connectomes. GCAN formulates diagnosis as a source-to-target counterfactual generation problem, where target-label connectomes are generated from source-label inputs and their differences are used to construct counterfactual attention maps. To preserve connectome topology, an Atlas-aware Bidirectional Transformer (AABT) performs network-level token encoding and decoding under brain-atlas constraints. The framework is further extended from functional connectivity (FC) to joint functional and structural connectivity (SC) modeling, enabling counterfactual analysis of complementary functional reorganization and structural topology changes. Experiments on hospital-collected and ADNI datasets show that GCAN achieves competitive performance across HC vs. SCD, HC vs. MCI, and SCD vs. MCI classification tasks. Visualization, circular connectome analysis, CAM-based comparison, ablation studies, and confidence interval analysis further support the interpretability and reliability of the proposed framework. Modality-specific FC and SC pre-trained classifiers are used to provide target-state priors for counterfactual generation while being separated from the downstream diagnostic classifier to prevent data leakage.

Modifying an attribute in tabular data often introduces an unnatural instance by breaking its relationships with other attributes. The modified instance must be both natural and minimally changed from the original instance. This paper addresses the challenge of generating such a modified instance. We identify key limitations in existing approaches: generative models either don't support instance-level attribute editing or, in the case of methods like CVAE, retain attribute information in the latent space, leading to unnecessary modifications. To solve this, we propose TabChange, an approach that analyzes the relationship between the attribute of interest and other attributes in the dataset. If the relationship is weak, it simply flips the attribute; if it is strong, it uses an adversarial framework that removes information about the attribute in the latent space representation. This removal enables precise modifications, making only the necessary adjustments to maintain naturalness. Our experiments across seven datasets show that TabChange generates counterfactuals in attributes that are comparable in naturalness and are more proximal to their original instances. This leads to a higher number of valid counterfactuals and a lower number of invalid counterfactuals compared to the baselines.

Two-sample testing is a fundamental tool for detecting distributional differences across scientific domains, but classical tests (including kernel-based tests) can be ineffective on high-dimensional structured data such as images. Recent deep two-sample tests improve sensitivity in these settings by learning informative representations, yet they provide limited insight into which data features drive rejection of the null hypothesis $H_0$. To address this issue, we propose a counterfactual explanation framework for deep two-sample testing that generates sample-level edits moving observations from a source group toward a target group while explicitly reducing the discrepancy measured by the test. Our method combines a diffusion autoencoder with a pretrained deep two-sample test model and optimizes a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) objective in the test model's representation space to produce plausible counterfactuals. We quantify distribution-level effects through changes in the test statistic and the resulting two-sample p-values. We evaluate the method on synthetic 2D shape datasets and two MRI cohorts. Across both settings, the counterfactual transformations consistently increase p-values relative to the original samples, indicating that the edited source set becomes statistically closer to the target distribution under the test. We measure minimality using LPIPS to ensure the counterfactuals remain close to the original samples. The resulting edits provide interpretable evidence of the features associated with the detected group differences. On MRI, the localized changes are consistent with known anatomical differences between cohorts.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are essential for actionable recourse, yet their reliability is often compromised in low-density regions, where classifiers exhibit high variance. Unlike existing methods that rely on expensive ensemble intersections to define stability, we propose \textit{DensityFlow}, a generative framework that constructs robust CEs by adhering to the high-confidence data manifold. Specifically, we model the counterfactual generation as continuous-time dynamics parameterized by Neural ODE, guided by a differentiable density score to actively avoid uncertain, low-density areas. This density score is learned via Noise Contrastive Estimation, effectively leveraging a $(K{+}1)$-way discriminator to estimate density ratios. For black-box settings, we introduce a local proxy distillation mechanism that aligns a lightweight surrogate with the target model strictly within the trajectory of CE generation, enabling efficient gradient-based optimization with minimal queries. Experiments demonstrate that \textit{DensityFlow} achieves superior validity under model multiplicity while significantly reducing query costs compared to ensemble-based baselines. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/G-AILab/DensityFlow.

Clustering is an unsupervised technique for grouping data points by similarity. While explainability methods exist for supervised machine learning, they are not directly applicable to clustering, making it challenging to understand cluster assignments. This interpretability gap is particularly evident in the popular density-based method DBSCAN, which assigns points as inliers (cluster members in dense regions) or outliers (noise points in sparse regions). DBSCAN does not provide insight into why a particular point receives its assignment or whether its assignment is robust to small changes in the data. To address the lack of explainability, we introduce ExDBSCAN, a density-aware, post-hoc explanation method. ExDBSCAN offers actionable counterfactual explanations, with theoretical guarantees for validity. It generates multiple counterfactuals using a density connected weighted graph, adopting a physics-inspired model that repels counterfactual candidates from one another (diversity), while pulling them toward the instance to explain (proximity). Empirical evaluation on 30 tabular datasets comparing against four baselines shows that ExDBSCAN outperforms all baselines while attaining perfect validity and retrieving diverse, proximal counterfactuals.

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 $p \le 10^{-14}$). 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 ($M=70$, $\varepsilon=δ=0.2$, $k_{\max}=25$). Reference implementation: https://github.com/sohaibafifi/neuro-co-cax

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide actionable recourse, but most methods assume a static framework with fixed data and a trained classifier. This assumption breaks in evolving data environments, such as data streams, where online models are repeatedly updated under concept drift. We identify CFE maintenance in this setting as a previously overlooked problem: explanations that are valid when generated may silently become invalid as the model evolves, including robust CFEs, which are not designed for continuous drift. We propose a lightweight, model-agnostic update scheme that repairs existing CFEs using local sampling to estimate validity and plausibility directions while preserving proximity to the original instance. Experiments on synthetic drifting streams show that initially created CFEs rapidly lose validity, whereas maintained CFEs preserve validity and local plausibility at a lower cost than repeated regeneration.

Node representation learning, such as Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), has emerged as a pivotal method in machine learning. The demand for reliable explanation generation surges, yet unsupervised models remain underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce a method for generating counterfactual (CF) explanations in unsupervised node representation learning. We identify the most important subgraphs that cause a significant change in the k-nearest neighbors of a node of interest in the learned embedding space upon perturbation. The k-nearest neighbor-based CF explanation method provides simple, yet pivotal, information for understanding unsupervised downstream tasks, such as top-k link prediction and clustering. Consequently, we introduce UNR-Explainer for generating expressive CF explanations for Unsupervised Node Representation learning methods based on a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). The proposed method demonstrates superior performance on diverse datasets for unsupervised GraphSAGE and DGI.

Evaluating whether large vision-language models (VLMs) align with human perception for high-level semantic scene comprehension remains a challenge. Traditional white-box interpretability methods are inapplicable to closed-source architectures and passive metrics fail to isolate causal features. We introduce Counterfactual Semantic Saliency (CSS). This black-box, model-agnostic framework quantifies the importance of objects by measuring the semantic shift induced by their causal ablation from a scene. To evaluate AI-human semantic alignment, we tested prominent VLMs against a human psychophysics baseline comprising 16,289 valid responses across 307 complex natural scenes and 1,306 high-fidelity counterfactual variants. Our analysis reveals a pervasive scene comprehension gap: models exhibit an overreliance (relative to humans) on large objects (size bias), objects at the center of the image (center bias), and high saliency objects. In contrast, models rely less on people in the scenes than our human participants to describe the images. A model's size bias is a primary driver explaining variations in model-human semantic divergence. Code and data will be available at https://github.com/starsky77/Counterfactual-Semantic-Saliency.

Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.

Self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs) are minimally modified inputs (minimality) generated by large language models (LLMs) that flip their own predictions (validity), offering a causally grounded approach to unraveling black-box LLM behavior. Yet extending them beyond English remains challenging: existing methods struggle to produce valid SCEs in non-dominant languages, and a persistent trade-off between validity and minimality undermines explanation quality. We introduce Macro, a preference alignment framework that applies Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to multilingual SCE generation, using a composite scoring function to construct preference pairs that effectively translate the trade-off into measurable preference signals. Experiments across four LLMs and seven typologically diverse languages show that Macro improves validity by 12.55% on average over the chain-of-thought baseline without degrading minimality, while avoiding the severe minimality violations of the translation-based baseline. Compared to supervised fine-tuning, Macro achieves superior performance on both metrics, confirming that explicit preference optimization is essential for balancing this trade-off. Further analyses reveal that Macro increases cross-lingual perturbation alignment and mitigates common generation errors. Our results highlight preference optimization as a promising direction for enhancing multilingual model explanations.