Learning Actionable Counterfactual Explanations in Large State Spaces
Keziah Naggita, Matthew R. Walter, Avrim Blum

TL;DR
This paper introduces high-level, real-world action-based counterfactual explanations for recourse generation, addressing the limitations of feature-specific CFEs and proposing data-driven methods for efficient, accurate generation in large state spaces.
Contribution
It proposes novel high-level counterfactual explanations grounded in real-world actions and develops data-driven methods to generate these efficiently in large state spaces.
Findings
Data-driven CFE generators are accurate and resource-efficient.
High-level CFEs offer advantages over low-level CFEs.
Empirical evaluation on healthcare datasets demonstrates effectiveness.
Abstract
Recourse generators provide actionable insights, often through feature-based counterfactual explanations (CFEs), to help negatively classified individuals understand how to adjust their input features to achieve a positive classification. These feature-based CFEs, which we refer to as \emph{low-level} CFEs, are overly specific (e.g., coding experience: \(4 \to 5+\) years) and often recommended in a feature space that doesn't straightforwardly align with real-world actions. To bridge this gap, we introduce three novel recourse types grounded in real-world actions: high-level continuous (\emph{hl-continuous}), high-level discrete (\emph{hl-discrete}), and high-level ID (\emph{hl-id}) CFEs. We formulate single-agent CFE generation methods, where we model the hl-discrete CFE as a solution to a weighted set cover problem and the hl-continuous CFE as a solution to an integer linear program.…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
- The paper provides a comprehensive analysis across diverse feature types, different dataset dimensions, and varying CFE frequencies. It also discuss fairness. - The proposed methods are model-agnostic. So it can be adapted to different models.
- This paper is limited to binary classification. - Equation (2) presumes a linear classifier, which may not represent the complexity of real-world models. This simplification could restrict the performance and generalizability of the proposed methods. - The reliance on pre-defined parameters, such as classifier coefficients and thresholds, may reduce the flexibility and accuracy of the approach across diverse datasets. These parameters are not directly derived from the data, potentially leadin
Strength: 1 The topic is quite interesting. 2 The algorithm is concise and several case studies are provided. 3 The paper is well presented.
1 The motivation is unclear. From my understanding, they aim to define a high-level action to identify counterfactual explanations. However, they do not clearly explain why this high-level action is suitable for users to act upon. Additionally, they should clarify how these actions are identified. 2 The paper lacks a theoretical guarantee to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm. 3 The proposed algorithms overlook the practicality of the generated counterfactual explanations (CFs)
The paper proposes to tackle an interesting problem of providing higher level actions, that might make it easier to communicate actionable changes to a user
The paper suffers from several weaknesses. I have enumerated them below, and marked the ones that are major. If the authors like, they can only focus on the major weaknesses: 1. [Major] The paper's motivation states that their proposed technique will be useful in cases when an individual does not have access to the priviledged information such as the ability to query the classifier. Now the entire proposed technique hinges on the ability to generate CFEs for all individuals and then train anoth
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)
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training
