Counterfactual Explanations

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.

Ascription of an image gives insights into the objects that influence the classification of the whole image or its pixels towards a specific category. These insights help radiologists to visualize deformities in medical imaging. Most of the existing visualization techniques are based on discriminative models and highlight regions of the input image participating in the decision-making of a classifier. However, these approaches do not take all noticeable objects into account as their objective is to classify the input by using a minimal set of discriminative features. To overcome the issue, a counterfactual explanation (CX) based class-oriented feature attribution method is proposed. A counterfactual explanation (CX) explicates a causal reasoning process of the form: "if X had not happened, then Y would not have happened". The method is built on generative adversarial networks (GANs) with a cyclical-consistent loss function. We evaluate our method on three datasets: synthetic, tuberculosis and BraTS. All experiments confirm the efficacy of the proposed method. This study also highlighted the limitations of existing counterfactual explanation techniques in producing plausible counterfactual instances (CIs). Accompanying CXs with believable CIs thus provides self-explanatory analogy-based explanations. To this end, a CI generation method is proposed. Also, a novel technique is used to evaluate the quality of CI. The baseline results are produced on the BraTS dataset.

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

Street-view perception models predict subjective attributes such as safety at scale, but remain correlational: they do not identify which localized visual changes would plausibly shift human judgement for a specific scene. We propose a lever-based interventional counterfactual framework that recasts scene-level explainability as a bounded search over structured counterfactual edits. Each lever specifies a semantic concept, spatial support, intervention direction, and constrained edit template. Candidate edits are generated through prompt-conditioned image editing and retained only if they satisfy validity checks for same-place preservation, locality, realism, and plausibility. In a pilot across 50 scenes from five cities, the framework reveals preliminary proxy-based directional patterns and a practical failure taxonomy under prompt-only editing, with Mobility Infrastructure and Physical Maintenance showing the largest auxiliary safety shifts. Human pairwise judgements remain the ground-truth endpoint for future validation.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) provide an intuitive way to understand recommender systems by identifying minimal modifications to user-item interactions that alter recommendation outcomes. Existing CE methods for recommender systems, however, have been evaluated under heterogeneous protocols, using different datasets, recommenders, metrics, and even explanation formats, which hampers reproducibility and fair comparison. Our paper systematically reproduces, re-implement, and re-evaluate eleven state-of-the-art CE methods for recommender systems, covering both native explainers (e.g., LIME-RS, SHAP, PRINCE, ACCENT, LXR, GREASE) and specific graph-based explainers originally proposed for GNNs. Here, a unified benchmarking framework is proposed to assess explainers along three dimensions: explanation format (implicit vs. explicit), evaluation level (item-level vs. list-level), and perturbation scope (user interaction vectors vs. user-item interaction graphs). Our evaluation protocol includes effectiveness, sparsity, and computational complexity metrics, and extends existing item-level assessments to top-K list-level explanations. Through extensive experiments on three real-world datasets and six representative recommender models, we analyze how well previously reported strengths of CE methods generalize across diverse setups. We observe that the trade-off between effectiveness and sparsity depends strongly on the specific method and evaluation setting, particularly under the explicit format; in addition, explainer performance remains largely consistent across item level and list level evaluations, and several graph-based explainers exhibit notable scalability limitations on large recommender graphs. Our results refine and challenge earlier conclusions about the robustness and practicality of CE generation methods in recommender systems: https://github.com/L2R-UET/CFExpRec.

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.

As AI models grow more complex, explainability is essential for building trust, yet concept-based counterfactual methods still face a trade-off between expressivity and efficiency. Representing underlying concepts as atomic sets is fast but misses relational context, whereas full graph representations are more faithful but require solving the NP-hard Graph Edit Distance (GED) problem. We propose U-CECE, a unified, model-agnostic multi-resolution framework for conceptual counterfactual explanations that adapts to data regime and compute budget. U-CECE spans three levels of expressivity: atomic concepts for broad explanations, relational sets-of-sets for simple interactions, and structural graphs for full semantic structure. At the structural level, both a precision-οriented transductive mode based on supervised Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and a scalable inductive mode based on unsupervised graph autoencoders (GAEs) are supported. Experiments on the structurally divergent CUB and Visual Genome datasets characterize the efficiency-expressivity trade-off across levels, while human surveys and LVLM-based evaluation show that, on CUB, the retrieved structural counterfactuals are frequently judged semantically equivalent to, and often preferred over, reference deterministic GED-based explanations.

Counterfactual explanations (CE) explain model decisions by identifying input modifications that lead to different predictions. Most existing methods operate at the instance level. Distributional Counterfactual Explanations (DCE) extend this setting by optimizing an optimal transport objective that balances proximity to a factual input distribution and alignment to a target output distribution, with statistical certification via chance constrained bounds. However, DCE relies on gradient based optimization, while many real-world tabular pipelines are dominated by non-differentiable models. We propose DISCOVER, a model-agnostic solver for distributional counterfactual explanations. DISCOVER preserves the original DCE objective and certification while replacing gradient descent with a budgeted propose-and-select search paradigm. It exploits a sample-wise decomposition of the transport objective to compute per-row impact scores and enforce a top-k intervention budget, focusing edits on the most influential samples. To guide candidate generation without predictor gradients, DISCOVER introduces an OT-guided cone sampling primitive driven by input-side transport geometry. Experiments on multiple tabular datasets demonstrate strong joint alignment of input and output distributions, extending distributional counterfactual reasoning to modern black box learning pipelines. A code repository is available at: https://github.com/VALHALLA9/Discover.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide human-centric interpretability by identifying the minimal, actionable changes required to alter a machine learning model's prediction. Therefore, CFs can be used as (i) interventions for abnormality prevention and (ii) augmented data for training robust models. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of CF generation using large language models (LLMs), including GPT-4 (zero-shot and few-shot) and two open-source models-BioMistral-7B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, in both pretrained and fine-tuned configurations. Using the multimodal AI-READI clinical dataset, we assess CFs across three dimensions: intervention quality, feature diversity, and augmentation effectiveness. Fine-tuned LLMs, particularly LLaMA-3.1-8B, produce CFs with high plausibility (up to 99%), strong validity (up to 0.99), and realistic, behaviorally modifiable feature adjustments. When used for data augmentation under controlled label-scarcity settings, LLM-generated CFs substantially restore classifier performance, yielding an average 20% F1 recovery across three scarcity scenarios. Compared with optimization-based baselines such as DiCE, CFNOW, and NICE, LLMs offer a flexible, model-agnostic approach that generates more clinically actionable and semantically coherent counterfactuals. Overall, this work demonstrates the promise of LLM-driven counterfactuals for both interpretable intervention design and data-efficient model training in sensor-based digital health. Impact: SenseCF fine-tunes an LLM to generate valid, representative counterfactual explanations and supplement minority class in an imbalanced dataset for improving model training and boosting model robustness and predictive performance

In recent years, explainability in machine learning has gained importance. In this context, counterfactual explanation (CE), which is an explanation method that uses examples, has attracted attention. However, it has been pointed out that CE is not robust when there are multiple machine-learning models with similar accuracy. These problems are important when using machine learning to make safe decisions. In this paper, we propose robust CEs that introduce a new viewpoint -- Pareto improvement -- and a method that uses multi-objective optimization to generate it. To evaluate the proposed method, we conducted experiments using both simulated and real data. The results demonstrate that the proposed method is both robust and practical. This study highlights the potential of ensuring robustness in decision-making by applying the concept of social welfare. We believe that this research can serve as a valuable foundation for various fields, including explainability in machine learning, decision-making, and action planning based on machine learning.

Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision. Although many existing methods successfully generate prediction-changing alternatives, they often produce unrealistic or infeasible recommendations due to a lack of explicit mechanisms for incorporating domain knowledge and intervention constraints. Neuro-symbolic AI offers a promising direction by combining data-driven predictive models with symbolic reasoning capable of representing human-understandable rules and feasible actions. This paper presents PACE, a modular neuro-symbolic framework for generating feasibility-aware counterfactual explanations. The framework separates prediction and reasoning into two components: a neural predictive model for classification and a symbolic reasoning layer that enforces domain-specific constraints during counterfactual generation. By explicitly modeling feasible interventions, the framework produces explanations consistent with domain knowledge while remaining interpretable and actionable. The approach is model-agnostic and adaptable to domains requiring realistic decision support. A case study is conducted on the Adult Income dataset, combining a multilayer perceptron classifier with Answer Set Programming (ASP) rules encoding feasible modifications to education, occupation, and working hours while preserving immutable attributes. Results highlight the trade-off between counterfactual validity and plausibility and show that symbolic constraints yield explanations that better satisfy domain-specific feasibility requirements, illustrating the potential of neuro-symbolic methods for transparent, feasibility-aware counterfactual explanation in explainable AI.

Churn models typically identify high-risk customers but do not specify which feasible retention action should be considered or why that action is appropriate. We present CARRE (Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation), a three-stage framework that combines retrieval-augmented candidate generation, cost-aware counterfactual scoring, and large language model (LLM) reasoning. CARRE retrieves a predefined catalog of retention actions, estimates model-predicted churn-risk changes under explicit feature transformations, and generates a structured churn reason and a profile-grounded explanation for the selected action. On the IBM Telco Customer Churn dataset, CARRE achieves 79.8% greater mean model-predicted risk reduction than the plain SHAP baseline and 80.4% greater reduction than the cost-controlled SHAP+Cost baseline across 313 high-risk test cases; its cost-normalized efficiency is 10.5% higher than that of plain SHAP. On a 136-case reason-stratified evaluation sample, diagnosis-driven prompt refinement increases weak-label agreement from 79.4% to 90.4%, with no auxiliary-plan constraint violations; because the same sample was used for error diagnosis and re-evaluation, the post-refinement result is not an independent estimate of generalization. For 135 explanations generated using the pre-refinement v2 reason outputs, two cross-vendor LLM judges assign mean scores ranging from 4.02 to 5.00 out of 5, although one judge saturates on actionability, and a deterministic audit finds no contradictions among 66 verifiable profile claims. Retrieval ablations show that k=5 provides the best evaluated compromise between high candidate coverage and downstream reasoning agreement in this dataset. These results illustrate how retrieval, model-based counterfactual scoring, and language generation can be separated and jointly evaluated in a prototype churn-prescription pipeline.