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.

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.

Automated maritime collision avoidance will rely on human supervision for the foreseeable future. This necessitates transparency into how the system perceives a scenario and plans a maneuver. However, the causal logic behind avoidance maneuvers is often complex and difficult to convey to a navigator. This paper explores how to explain these factors in a selective, understandable manner for supervisors with a nautical background. We propose a method for generating contrastive explanations, which provide human-centric insights by comparing a system's proposed solution against relevant alternatives. To evaluate this, we developed a framework that uses visual and textual cues to highlight key objectives from a state-of-the-art collision avoidance system. An exploratory user study with four experienced marine officers suggests that contrastive explanations support the understanding of the system's objectives. However, our findings also reveal that while these explanations are highly valuable in complex multi-vessel encounters, they can increase cognitive workload, suggesting that future maritime interfaces may benefit most from demand-driven or scenario-specific explanation strategies.

Existing algorithms for generating Counterfactual Explanations (CXs) for Machine Learning (ML) typically assume fully specified inputs. However, real-world data often contains missing values, and the impact of these incomplete inputs on the performance of existing CX methods remains unexplored. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate recent CX generation methods on their ability to provide valid and plausible counterfactuals when inputs are incomplete. As part of this investigation, we hypothesize that robust CX generation methods will be better suited to address the challenge of providing valid and plausible counterfactuals when inputs are incomplete. Our findings reveal that while robust CX methods achieve higher validity than non-robust ones, all methods struggle to find valid counterfactuals. These results motivate the need for new CX methods capable of handling incomplete inputs.

Verification and validation of cyber-physical systems (CPS) via large-scale simulation often surface failures that are hard to interpret, especially when triggered by interactions between continuous and discrete behaviors at specific events or times. Existing debugging techniques can localize anomalies to specific model components, but they provide little insight into the input-signal values and timing conditions that trigger violations, or the minimal, precisely timed changes that could have prevented the failure. In this article, we introduce DeCaF, a counterfactual-guided explanation and assertion-based characterization framework for CPS debugging. Given a failing test input, DeCaF generates counterfactual changes to the input signals that transform the test from failing to passing. These changes are designed to be minimal, necessary, and sufficient to precisely restore correctness. Then, it infers assertions as logical predicates over inputs that generalize recovery conditions in an interpretable form engineers can reason about, without requiring access to internal model details. Our approach combines three counterfactual generators with two causal models, and infers success assertions. Across three CPS case studies, DeCaF achieves its best success rate with KD-Tree Nearest Neighbors combined with M5 model tree, while Genetic Algorithm combined with Random Forest provides the strongest balance between success and causal precision.

As robots increasingly operate in shared, safety critical environments, acting safely is no longer sufficient robots must also make their safety decisions intelligible to human collaborators. In human robot collaboration (HRC), behaviours such as stopping or switching modes are often triggered by internal safety constraints that remain opaque to nearby workers. We present a dialogue based framework for interactive explanation of safety decisions in HRC. The approach tightly couples explanation with constraint based safety evaluation, grounding dialogue in the same state and constraint representations that govern behaviour selection. Explanations are derived directly from the recorded decision trace, enabling users to pose causal ("Why?"), contrastive ("Why not?"), and counterfactual ("What if?") queries about safety interventions. Counterfactual reasoning is evaluated in a bounded manner under fixed, certified safety parameters, ensuring that interactive exploration does not relax operational guarantees. We instantiate the framework in a construction robotics scenario and provide a structured operational trace illustrating how constraint aware dialogue clarifies safety interventions and supports coordinated task recovery. By treating explanation as an operational interface to safety control, this work advances a design perspective for interactive, safety aware autonomy in HRC.

As deep neural networks are deployed in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving and medical diagnosis, stakeholders need explanations that are interpretable but also trustworthy with formal guarantees. Existing XAI methods fall short: heuristic attribution techniques (e.g., LIME, Integrated Gradients) highlight influential features but offer no mathematical guarantees about decision boundaries, while formal methods verify robustness yet remain untargeted, analyzing the nearest boundary regardless of whether it represents a critical risk. In safety-critical systems, not all misclassifications carry equal consequences; confusing a "Stop" sign for a "60 kph" sign is far more dangerous than confusing it with a "No Passing" sign. We introduce ViTaX (Verified and Targeted Explanations), a formal XAI framework that generates targeted semifactual explanations with mathematical guarantees. For a given input (class y) and a user-specified critical alternative (class t), ViTaX: (1) identifies the minimal feature subset most sensitive to the y->t transition, and (2) applies formal reachability analysis to guarantee that perturbing these features by epsilon cannot flip the classification to t. We formalize this through Targeted epsilon-Robustness, certifying whether a feature subset remains robust under perturbation toward a specific target class. ViTaX is the first method to provide formally guaranteed explanations of a model's resilience against user-identified alternatives. Evaluations on MNIST, GTSRB, EMNIST, and TaxiNet demonstrate over 30% fidelity improvement with minimal explanation cardinality.

Counterfactual explanations emerge as a powerful approach in explainable AI, providing what-if scenarios that reveal how minimal changes to an input time series can alter the model's prediction. This work presents a survey of recent algorithms for counterfactual explanations for time series classification. We review state-of-the-art methods, spanning instance-based nearest-neighbor techniques, pattern-driven algorithms, gradient-based optimization, and generative models. For each, we discuss the underlying methodology, the models and classifiers they target, and the datasets on which they are evaluated. We highlight unique challenges in generating counterfactuals for temporal data, such as maintaining temporal coherence, plausibility, and actionable interpretability, which distinguish the temporal from tabular or image domains. We analyze the strengths and limitations of existing approaches and compare their effectiveness along key dimensions (validity, proximity, sparsity, plausibility, etc.). In addition, we implemented an open-source implementation library, Counterfactual Explanations for Time Series (CFTS), as a reference framework that includes many algorithms and evaluation metrics. We discuss this library's contributions in standardizing evaluation and enabling practical adoption of explainable time series techniques. Finally, based on the literature and identified gaps, we propose future research directions, including improved user-centered design, integration of domain knowledge, and counterfactuals for time series forecasting.

Modern neural networks achieve strong performance but remain difficult to interpret in high-dimensional visual domains. Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide a principled approach to interpreting black-box predictions by identifying minimal input changes that alter model outputs. However, existing CFE methods often rely on dataset-specific generative models and incur substantial computational cost, limiting their scalability to high-resolution data. We propose SCE-LITE-HQ, a scalable framework for counterfactual generation that leverages pretrained generative foundation models without task-specific retraining. The method operates in the latent space of the generator, incorporates smoothed gradients to improve optimization stability, and applies mask-based diversification to promote realistic and structurally diverse counterfactuals. We evaluate SCE-LITE-HQ on natural and medical datasets using a desiderata-driven evaluation protocol. Results show that SCE-LITE-HQ produces valid, realistic, and diverse counterfactuals competitive with or outperforming existing baselines, while avoiding the overhead of training dedicated generative models.

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.

Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly essential as AI systems are deployed in critical fields such as healthcare and finance, offering transparency into AI-driven decisions. Two major XAI paradigms, counterfactual explanations (CFX) and feature attribution (FA), serve distinct roles in model interpretability. This study introduces GradCFA, a hybrid framework combining CFX and FA to improve interpretability by explicitly optimizing feasibility, plausibility, and diversity - key qualities often unbalanced in existing methods. Unlike most CFX research focused on binary classification, GradCFA extends to multi-class scenarios, supporting a wider range of applications. We evaluate GradCFA's validity, proximity, sparsity, plausibility, and diversity against state-of-the-art methods, including Wachter, DiCE, CARE for CFX, and SHAP for FA. Results show GradCFA effectively generates feasible, plausible, and diverse counterfactuals while offering valuable FA insights. By identifying influential features and validating their impact, GradCFA advances AI interpretability. The code for implementation of this work can be found at: https://github.com/jacob-ws/GradCFs .

Deep learning models can predict protein properties with unprecedented accuracy but rarely offer mechanistic insight or actionable guidance for engineering improved variants. When a model flags an antibody as unstable, the protein engineer is left without recourse: which mutations would rescue stability while preserving function? We introduce Manifold-Constrained Counterfactual Optimization for Proteins (MCCOP), a framework that computes minimal, biologically plausible sequence edits that flip a model's prediction to a desired target state. MCCOP operates in a continuous joint sequence-structure latent space and employs a pretrained diffusion model as a manifold prior, balancing three objectives: validity (achieving the target property), proximity (minimizing mutations), and plausibility (producing foldable proteins). We evaluate MCCOP on three protein engineering tasks - GFP fluorescence rescue, thermodynamic stability enhancement, and E3 ligase activity recovery - and show that it generates sparser, more plausible counterfactuals than both discrete and continuous baselines. The recovered mutations align with known biophysical mechanisms, including chromophore packing and hydrophobic core consolidation, establishing MCCOP as a tool for both model interpretation and hypothesis-driven protein design. Our code is publicly available at github.com/weroks/mccop.

We present a new method for generating plausible counterfactual explanations for time series classification problems. The approach performs gradient-based optimization directly in the input space. To enforce plausibility, we integrate soft-DTW (dynamic time warping) alignment with $k$-nearest neighbors from the target class, which effectively encourages the generated counterfactuals to adopt a realistic temporal structure. The overall optimization objective is a multi-faceted loss function that balances key counterfactual properties. It incorporates losses for validity, sparsity, and proximity, alongside the novel soft-DTW-based plausibility component. We conduct an evaluation of our method against several strong reference approaches, measuring the key properties of the generated counterfactuals across multiple dimensions. The results demonstrate that our method achieves competitive performance in validity while significantly outperforming existing approaches in distributional alignment with the target class, indicating superior temporal realism. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis highlights the critical limitations of existing methods in preserving realistic temporal structure. This work shows that the proposed method consistently generates counterfactual explanations for time series classifiers that are not only valid but also highly plausible and consistent with temporal patterns.

Time-series clustering is a fundamental tool for pattern discovery, yet existing explainability methods, primarily based on feature attribution or metadata, fail to identify the transitions that move an instance across cluster boundaries. While Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) identify the minimal temporal perturbations required to alter the prediction of a model, they have been mostly confined to supervised settings. This paper introduces GALACTIC, the first unified framework to bridge local and global counterfactual explainability for unsupervised time-series clustering. At instance level (local), GALACTIC generates perturbations via a cluster-aware optimization objective that respects the target and underlying cluster assignments. At cluster level (global), to mitigate cognitive load and enhance interpretability, we formulate a representative CE selection problem. We propose a Minimum Description Length (MDL) objective to extract a non-redundant summary of global explanations that characterize the transitions between clusters. We prove that our MDL objective is supermodular, which allows the corresponding MDL reduction to be framed as a monotone submodular set function. This enables an efficient greedy selection algorithm with provable $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantees. Extensive experimental evaluation on the UCR Archive demonstrates that GALACTIC produces significantly sparser local CEs and more concise global summaries than state-of-the-art baselines adapted for our problem, offering the first unified approach for interpreting clustered time-series through counterfactuals.

Counterfactual learning has become promising for understanding and modeling causality in complex and dynamic systems. This paper presents a novel method for counterfactual learning in the context of multivariate time series analysis and forecast. The primary objective is to uncover hidden causal relationships and identify potential interventions to achieve desired outcomes. The proposed methodology integrates genetic algorithms and rigorous causality tests to infer and validate counterfactual dependencies within temporal sequences. More specifically, we employ Granger causality to enhance the reliability of identified causal relationships, rigorously assessing their statistical significance. Then, genetic algorithms, in conjunction with quantile regression, are used to exploit these intricate causal relationships to project future scenarios. The synergy between genetic algorithms and causality tests ensures a thorough exploration of the temporal dynamics present in the data, revealing hidden dependencies and enabling the projection of outcomes under hypothetical interventions. We evaluate the performance of our algorithm on real-world data, showcasing its ability to handle complex causal relationships, revealing meaningful counterfactual insights, and allowing for the prediction of outcomes under hypothetical interventions.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as reasoning engines in autonomous driving, yet their decision-making remains opaque. We propose to study their decision process through counterfactual explanations, which identify the minimal semantic changes to a scene description required to alter a driving plan. We introduce DRIV-EX, a method that leverages gradient-based optimization on continuous embeddings to identify the input shifts required to flip the model's decision. Crucially, to avoid the incoherent text typical of unconstrained continuous optimization, DRIV-EX uses these optimized embeddings solely as a semantic guide: they are used to bias a controlled decoding process that re-generates the original scene description. This approach effectively steers the generation toward the counterfactual target while guaranteeing the linguistic fluency, domain validity, and proximity to the original input, essential for interpretability. Evaluated using the LC-LLM planner on a textual transcription of the highD dataset, DRIV-EX generates valid, fluent counterfactuals more reliably than existing baselines. It successfully exposes latent biases and provides concrete insights to improve the robustness of LLM-based driving agents. The code is available at "https://github.com/Amaia-CARDIEL/DRIV_EX" .

Operators of Earth observation satellites need justifications for scheduling decisions: why a request was selected, rejected, or what changes would make it schedulable. Existing approaches construct post-hoc reasoning layers independent of the optimizer, risking non-causal attributions, incomplete constraint conjunctions, and solver-path dependence. We take a faithfulness-first approach: every explanation is a certificate derived from the optimization model itself: minimal infeasible subsets for rejections, tight constraints and contrastive trade-offs for selections, and inverse solves for what-if queries. On a scheduling instance with structurally distinct constraint interactions, certificates achieve perfect soundness with respect to the solver's constraint model (15/15 cited-constraint checks), counterfactual validity (7/7), and stability (Jaccard = 1.0 across 28 seed-pairs), while a post-hoc baseline produces non-causal attributions in 29% of cases and misses constraint conjunctions in every multi-cause rejection. A scalability analysis up to 200 orders and 30 satellites confirms practical extraction times for operational batches.

Explaining opaque Machine Learning (ML) models has become an increasingly important challenge. However, current eXplanation in AI (XAI) methods suffer several shortcomings, including insufficient abstraction, limited user interactivity, and inadequate integration of symbolic knowledge. We propose ReasonX, an explanation tool based on expressions (or, queries) in a closed algebra of operators over theories of linear constraints. ReasonX provides declarative and interactive explanations for decision trees, which may represent the ML models under analysis or serve as global or local surrogate models for tabular-data black-box classifiers. Users can express background or common sense knowledge as linear constraints. This allows for reasoning at multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from fully specified examples to under-specified or partially constrained ones. ReasonX leverages Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) to reason over the features of factual and contrastive instances. We present here the architecture of ReasonX, which consists of a Python layer, closer to the user, and a Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) layer, which implements a meta-interpreter of the query algebra. The capabilities of ReasonX are demonstrated through qualitative examples, and compared to other XAI tools through quantitative experiments.

Counterfactual explanation (CE) is an important domain within post-hoc explainability. However, the explanations generated by most CE generators are often highly redundant. This work introduces an open-source Python library xai-cola, which provides an end-to-end pipeline for sparsifying CEs produced by arbitrary generators, reducing superfluous feature changes while preserving their validity. It offers a documented API that takes as input raw tabular data in pandas DataFrame form, a preprocessing object (for standardization and encoding), and a trained scikit-learn or PyTorch model. On this basis, users can either employ the built-in or externally imported CE generators. The library also implements several sparsification policies and includes visualization routines for analysing and comparing sparsified counterfactuals. xai-cola is released under the MIT license and can be installed from PyPI. Empirical experiments indicate that xai-cola produces sparser counterfactuals across several CE generators, reducing the number of modified features by up to 50% in our setting. The source code is available at https://github.com/understanding-ml/COLA.

Counterfactual inference enables clinicians to ask "what if" questions about patient outcomes, but standard methods assume feature independence and simultaneous modifiability -- assumptions violated by longitudinal clinical data. We introduce the Sequential Counterfactual Framework, which respects temporal dependencies in electronic health records by distinguishing immutable features (chronic diagnoses) from controllable features (lab values) and modeling how interventions propagate through time. Applied to 2,723 COVID-19 patients (383 Long COVID heart failure cases, 2,340 matched controls), we demonstrate that 38-67% of patients with chronic conditions would require biologically impossible counterfactuals under naive methods. We identify a cardiorenal cascade (CKD -> AKI -> HF) with relative risks of 2.27 and 1.19 at each step, illustrating temporal propagation that sequential -- but not naive -- counterfactuals can capture. Our framework transforms counterfactual explanation from "what if this feature were different?" to "what if we had intervened earlier, and how would that propagate forward?" -- yielding clinically actionable insights grounded in biological plausibility.

Experimental user studies evaluating the effectiveness of different subtypes of post-hoc explanations for black-box models are largely nonexistent. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate how different types of counterfactual explanations, namely single point explanations and interval-based explanations, affect both model understanding and (demonstrated) trust. We conducted an online user study using a within-subjects experimental design, where the experimental arms were (i) no explanation (control), (ii) feature importance scores, (iii) point counterfactual explanations, and (iv) interval counterfactual explanations. Our results clearly show the superiority of interval explanations over other tested explanation types in increasing both model understanding and demonstrated trust in the AI. We could not support findings of some previous studies showing an effect of point counterfactual explanations compared to the control group. Our results further highlight the role individual differences in, for example, cognitive style or personality, in explanation effectiveness.

Visual counterfactual explanations aim to reveal the minimal semantic modifications that can alter a model's prediction, providing causal and interpretable insights into deep neural networks. However, existing diffusion-based counterfactual generation methods are often computationally expensive, slow to sample, and imprecise in localizing the modified regions. To address these limitations, we propose MaskDiME, a simple, fast, yet effective diffusion framework that unifies semantic consistency and spatial precision through localized sampling. Our approach adaptively focuses on decision-relevant regions to achieve localized and semantically consistent counterfactual generation while preserving high image fidelity. Our training-free framework, MaskDiME, performs inference over 30x faster than the baseline and achieves comparable or state-of-the-art performance across five benchmark datasets spanning diverse visual domains, establishing a practical and generalizable solution for efficient counterfactual explanation.

Previous work has explored the computational complexity of deriving two fundamental types of explanations for ML model predictions: (1) sufficient reasons, which are subsets of input features that, when fixed, determine a prediction, and (2) contrastive reasons, which are subsets of input features that, when modified, alter a prediction. Prior studies have examined these explanations in different contexts, such as non-probabilistic versus probabilistic frameworks and local versus global settings. In this study, we introduce a unified framework for analyzing these explanations, demonstrating that they can all be characterized through the minimization of a unified probabilistic value function. We then prove that the complexity of these computations is influenced by three key properties of the value function: (1) monotonicity, (2) submodularity, and (3) supermodularity - which are three fundamental properties in combinatorial optimization. Our findings uncover some counterintuitive results regarding the nature of these properties within the explanation settings examined. For instance, although the local value functions do not exhibit monotonicity or submodularity/supermodularity whatsoever, we demonstrate that the global value functions do possess these properties. This distinction enables us to prove a series of novel polynomial-time results for computing various explanations with provable guarantees in the global explainability setting, across a range of ML models that span the interpretability spectrum, such as neural networks, decision trees, and tree ensembles. In contrast, we show that even highly simplified versions of these explanations become NP-hard to compute in the corresponding local explainability setting.

Counterfactual explanations (CFs) provide human-interpretable insights into model's predictions by identifying minimal changes to input features that would alter the model's output. However, existing methods struggle to generate multiple high-quality explanations that (1) affect only a small portion of the features, (2) can be applied to tabular data with heterogeneous features, and (3) are consistent with the user-defined constraints. We propose CounterFlowNet, a generative approach that formulates CF generation as sequential feature modification using conditional Generative Flow Networks (GFlowNet). CounterFlowNet is trained to sample CFs proportionally to a user-specified reward function that can encode key CF desiderata: validity, sparsity, proximity and plausibility, encouraging high-quality explanations. The sequential formulation yields highly sparse edits, while a unified action space seamlessly supports continuous and categorical features. Moreover, actionability constraints, such as immutability and monotonicity of features, can be enforced at inference time via action masking, without retraining. Experiments on eight datasets under two evaluation protocols demonstrate that CounterFlowNet achieves superior trade-offs between validity, sparsity, plausibility, and diversity with full satisfaction of the given constraints.

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.