Consistent Counterfactual Explanations via Anomaly Control and Data Coherence

Maria Movin;Federico Siciliano;Rui Ferreira;Fabrizio Silvestri;Gabriele Tolomei
{"title":"Consistent Counterfactual Explanations via Anomaly Control and Data Coherence","authors":"Maria Movin;Federico Siciliano;Rui Ferreira;Fabrizio Silvestri;Gabriele Tolomei","doi":"10.1109/TAI.2024.3496616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic recourses are popular methods to provide individuals impacted by machine learning models with recommendations on feasible actions for a more favorable prediction. Most of the previous algorithmic recourse methods work under the assumption that the predictive model does not change over time. However, in reality, models in deployment may both be periodically retrained and have their architecture changed. Therefore, it is desirable that the recourse should remain valid when such a model update occurs, unless new evidence arises. We call this feature <italic>consistency</i>. This article presents anomaly control and data coherence (ACDC), a novel model-agnostic recourse method that generates counterfactual explanations, i.e., instance-level recourses. ACDC is inspired by anomaly detection methods and uses a one-class classifier to aid the search for valid, consistent, and feasible counterfactual explanations. The one-class classifier asserts that the generated counterfactual explanations lie on the data manifold and are not outliers of the target class. We compare ACDC against several state-of-the-art recourse methods across four datasets. Our experiments show that ACDC outperforms baselines both in generating consistent counterfactual explanations, and in generating feasible and plausible counterfactual explanations, while still having proximity measures similar to the baseline methods targeting the data manifold.","PeriodicalId":73305,"journal":{"name":"IEEE transactions on artificial intelligence","volume":"6 4","pages":"794-804"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE transactions on artificial intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10758426/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Algorithmic recourses are popular methods to provide individuals impacted by machine learning models with recommendations on feasible actions for a more favorable prediction. Most of the previous algorithmic recourse methods work under the assumption that the predictive model does not change over time. However, in reality, models in deployment may both be periodically retrained and have their architecture changed. Therefore, it is desirable that the recourse should remain valid when such a model update occurs, unless new evidence arises. We call this feature consistency. This article presents anomaly control and data coherence (ACDC), a novel model-agnostic recourse method that generates counterfactual explanations, i.e., instance-level recourses. ACDC is inspired by anomaly detection methods and uses a one-class classifier to aid the search for valid, consistent, and feasible counterfactual explanations. The one-class classifier asserts that the generated counterfactual explanations lie on the data manifold and are not outliers of the target class. We compare ACDC against several state-of-the-art recourse methods across four datasets. Our experiments show that ACDC outperforms baselines both in generating consistent counterfactual explanations, and in generating feasible and plausible counterfactual explanations, while still having proximity measures similar to the baseline methods targeting the data manifold.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信