Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3351095.3372850acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations

Published: 27 January 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Post-hoc explanations of machine learning models are crucial for people to understand and act on algorithmic predictions. An intriguing class of explanations is through counterfactuals, hypothetical examples that show people how to obtain a different prediction. We posit that effective counterfactual explanations should satisfy two properties: feasibility of the counterfactual actions given user context and constraints, and diversity among the counterfactuals presented. To this end, we propose a framework for generating and evaluating a diverse set of counterfactual explanations based on determinantal point processes. To evaluate the actionability of counterfactuals, we provide metrics that enable comparison of counterfactual-based methods to other local explanation methods. We further address necessary tradeoffs and point to causal implications in optimizing for counterfactuals. Our experiments on four real-world datasets show that our framework can generate a set of counterfactuals that are diverse and well approximate local decision boundaries, outperforming prior approaches to generating diverse counterfactuals. We provide an implementation of the framework at https://github.com/microsoft/DiCE.

Supplementary Material

PDF File (p607-mothilal-supp.pdf)
Supplemental material.

References

[1]
[n.d.]. Lending Club Statistics. https://www.lendingclub.com/info/download-data.action.
[2]
Accessed 2019. German credit dataset. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/support/statlog+(german+credit+data).
[3]
Monica Andini, Emanuele Ciani, Guido de Blasio, Alessio D'Ignazio, and Viola Salvestrini. 2017. Targeting policy-compliers with machine learning: an application to a tax rebate programme in Italy. (2017).
[4]
Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. "Machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it's biased against blacks". https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
[5]
Susan Athey. 2017. Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science 355, 6324 (2017), 483--485.
[6]
Sarah R Beck, Kevin J Riggs, and Sarah L Gorniak. 2009. Relating developments in childrenś counterfactual thinking and executive functions. Thinking & reasoning.
[7]
Daphna Buchsbaum, Sophie Bridgers, Deena Skolnick Weisberg, and Alison Gopnik. 2012. The power of possibility: Causal learning, counterfactual reasoning, and pretend play. Philosophical Trans. of the Royal Soc. B: Biological Sciences (2012).
[8]
M Kate Bundorf and Helena Szrek. 2010. Choice set size and decision making: the case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. Medical Decision Making 30, 5 (2010), 582--593.
[9]
Rich Caruana, Yin Lou, Johannes Gehrke, Paul Koch, Marc Sturm, and Noemie Elhadad. 2015. Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of KDD.
[10]
Mark Craven and Jude W Shavlik. 1996. Extracting tree-structured representations of trained networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems.
[11]
Wuyang Dai, Theodora S Brisimi, William G Adams, Theofanie Mela, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Ioannis Ch Paschalidis. 2015. Prediction of hospitalization due to heart diseases by supervised learning methods. International journal of medical informatics 84, 3 (2015), 189--197.
[12]
Kevin Davenport. 2015. Lending Club Data Analysis Revisited with Python. http://kldavenport.com/lending-club-data-analysis-revisted-with-python/.
[13]
Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 (2017).
[14]
Julia Dressel and Hany Farid. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science advances 4, 1 (2018), eaao5580.
[15]
Michael D Ekstrand, F Maxwell Harper, Martijn C Willemsen, and Joseph A Konstan. 2014. User perception of differences in recommender algorithms. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 161--168.
[16]
Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi, Franco Turini, and Fosca Giannotti. 2018. Local rule-based explanations of black box decision systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10820 (2018).
[17]
JFdarre. 2015. Project 1: Lending Club's data. https://rpubs.com/jfdarre/119147.
[18]
Been Kim, Rajiv Khanna, and Oluwasanmi O Koyejo. 2016. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In Proceedings of NIPS.
[19]
Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of ICLR.
[20]
Ronny Kohavi and Barry Becker. 1996. UCI Machine Learning Repository. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/adult
[21]
Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar, et al. 2012. Determinantal point processes for machine learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 5, 2--3 (2012), 123--286.
[22]
Matevž Kunaver and Tomaž Požrl. 2017. Diversity in recommender systems-A survey. Knowledge-Based Systems 123 (2017), 154--162.
[23]
Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4066--4076.
[24]
Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stephen H Bach, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proc. KDD.
[25]
Zachary C Lipton. 2016. The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490 (2016).
[26]
Yin Lou, Rich Caruana, and Johannes Gehrke. 2012. Intelligible models for classification and regression. In Proceedings of KDD.
[27]
Yin Lou, Rich Caruana, Johannes Gehrke, and Giles Hooker. 2013. Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of KDD.
[28]
Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of NIPS.
[29]
Aravindh Mahendran and Andrea Vedaldi. 2015. Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. In Proceedings of CVPR.
[30]
PAIR. 2018. What-If Tool. https://pair-code.github.io/what-if-tool/.
[31]
Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality. Cambridge university press.
[32]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of KDD.
[33]
Jonah E Rockoff, Brian A Jacob, Thomas J Kane, and Douglas O Staiger. 2011. Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education finance and Policy 6, 1 (2011), 43--74.
[34]
Chris Russell. 2019. Efficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanations. In Proceedings of FAT*.
[35]
Mark Sanderson, Jiayu Tang, Thomas Arni, and Paul Clough. 2009. What else is there? search diversity examined. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 562--569.
[36]
Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder, and Peter M Todd. 2010. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of consumer research 37, 3 (2010), 409--425.
[37]
S Tan, R Caruana, G Hooker, and Y Lou. 2017. Distill-and-compare: Auditing black-box models using transparent model distillation. (2017).
[38]
Richard Tomsett, Dave Braines, Dan Harborne, Alun Preece, and Supriyo Chakraborty. 2018. Interpretable to Whom? A Role-based Model for Analyzing Interpretable Machine Learning Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07552 (2018).
[39]
Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2017. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR.
[40]
Austin Waters and Risto Miikkulainen. 2014. Grade: Machine learning support for graduate admissions. AI Magazine 35, 1 (2014), 64.
[41]
Deena S Weisberg and Alison Gopnik. 2013. Pretense, counterfactuals, and Bayesian causal models: Why what is not real really matters. Cognitive Science (2013).
[42]
Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. 2014. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Proceedings of ECCV.
[43]
Bolei Zhou, Yiyou Sun, David Bau, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. Interpretable basis decomposition for visual explanation. In Proceedings of ECCV.
[44]
Haojun Zhu. 2016. Predicting Earning Potential using the Adult Dataset. https://rpubs.com/H_Zhu/235617.
[45]
Cai-Nicolas Ziegler, Sean M McNee, Joseph A Konstan, and Georg Lausen. 2005. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 22--32.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Local structural–functional coupling with counterfactual explanations for epilepsy predictionNeuroImage10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120978306(120978)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2025)Overlap Number of Balls Model-Agnostic CounterFactuals (ONB-MACF): A data-morphology-based counterfactual generation method for trustworthy artificial intelligenceInformation Sciences10.1016/j.ins.2024.121844(121844)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2025)CISL-PD: A deep learning framework of clinical intervention strategies for Parkinson’s disease based on directional counterfactual Dual GANsExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125506261(125506)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
    January 2020
    895 pages
    ISBN:9781450369367
    DOI:10.1145/3351095
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 January 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    FAT* '20
    Sponsor:

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)2,856
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)314
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)Local structural–functional coupling with counterfactual explanations for epilepsy predictionNeuroImage10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120978306(120978)Online publication date: Feb-2025
    • (2025)Overlap Number of Balls Model-Agnostic CounterFactuals (ONB-MACF): A data-morphology-based counterfactual generation method for trustworthy artificial intelligenceInformation Sciences10.1016/j.ins.2024.121844(121844)Online publication date: Jan-2025
    • (2025)CISL-PD: A deep learning framework of clinical intervention strategies for Parkinson’s disease based on directional counterfactual Dual GANsExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125506261(125506)Online publication date: Feb-2025
    • (2025)Interpretable ECG analysis for myocardial infarction detection through counterfactualsBiomedical Signal Processing and Control10.1016/j.bspc.2024.107227102(107227)Online publication date: Apr-2025
    • (2025)AI to renew public employment services? Explanation and trust of domain expertsAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-024-00629-wOnline publication date: 9-Jan-2025
    • (2025)The explanation dialogues: an expert focus study to understand requirements towards explanations within the GDPRArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-024-09430-wOnline publication date: 13-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Boosting Credit Risk Data Quality Using Machine Learning and eXplainable AI TechniquesMachine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases10.1007/978-3-031-74643-7_30(420-429)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Matching the Expert’s Knowledge via a Counterfactual-Based Feature Importance MeasureMachine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases10.1007/978-3-031-74633-8_5(71-86)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Manipulation Risks in Explainable AI: The Implications of the Disagreement ProblemMachine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases10.1007/978-3-031-74633-8_12(185-200)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Conversational XAI: Formalizing Its Basic Design PrinciplesMachine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases10.1007/978-3-031-74627-7_22(295-309)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media