Deep Backtracking Counterfactuals for Causally Compliant Explanations
Klaus-Rudolf Kladny, Julius von K\"ugelgen, Bernhard Sch\"olkopf,, Michael Muehlebach

TL;DR
This paper introduces DeepBC, a novel method for generating causally compliant backtracking counterfactuals in complex models, offering a versatile alternative to existing counterfactual explanation techniques.
Contribution
We propose DeepBC, a practical approach for computing backtracking counterfactuals in deep generative causal models, with two implementation variants and demonstrated effectiveness on image datasets.
Findings
DeepBC effectively generates counterfactuals for high-dimensional data.
The method maintains causal laws, ensuring causally compliant explanations.
Experimental results show versatility and modularity of DeepBC.
Abstract
Counterfactuals answer questions of what would have been observed under altered circumstances and can therefore offer valuable insights. Whereas the classical interventional interpretation of counterfactuals has been studied extensively, backtracking constitutes a less studied alternative where all causal laws are kept intact. In the present work, we introduce a practical method called deep backtracking counterfactuals (DeepBC) for computing backtracking counterfactuals in structural causal models that consist of deep generative components. We propose two distinct versions of our method--one utilizing Langevin Monte Carlo sampling and the other employing constrained optimization--to generate counterfactuals for high-dimensional data. As a special case, our formulation reduces to methods in the field of counterfactual explanations. Compared to these, our approach represents a causally…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2024
The paper is well written and easy to follow. It combines the idea of backtracking counterfactuals with the deep SCM framework to tackle the problem of counterfactual estimation. The paper is sound and shows convincing results of the differences between interventional and backtracking counterfactuals in high-dimensional settings.
The paper is a relatively simple combination of [1] and [2] and it is unclear how important the linearisation of the optimisation procedure is for the performance of the counterfactuals: How well would simple SGD perform? Is the optimisation over u* converging or simply stopped after 30 iterations? From my understanding, the DeepBC algorithm is limited to handle continuous variables and it is unclear how the choice of distance metric would influence the resulting counterfactuals in case of u's w
- The proposed method draws interesting connections between counterfactuals in explainability literature and causal literature and shows how backtracking counterfactuals can be seen as a generalised form of other. - The paper is very well written easy to follow the framework introduced - Nice illustrative examples on the Morpho-MNIST dataset
- The proposed approach solves an optimisation problem for every counterfactual query, very similar to [1, 2]. Unlike referred papers, the authors here aim to generate faithful counterfactuals respecting the given causal graph; it is unclear how the faithfulness of generated counterfactuals is maintained. (based on results, in the case of celebA it seems like the causal graph is not respected). - Is identity preservation enforced in the inference optimisation iteration? (as observed in celebA da
A good addition to the existing literature.
1. The importance of the problem under consideration is not well-articulated. 2. The performance evaluations lack a quantitative measure to demonstrate the validity of the method. In other words, how do we know if the generated counterfactuals are good or bad?
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsScientific Computing and Data Management · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
MethodsCounterfactuals Explanations
