Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

FGCE: Feasible Group Counterfactual Explanations for Auditing Fairness

Published 29 Oct 2024 in cs.LG, cs.AI, and stat.ME | (2410.22591v2)

Abstract: This paper introduces the first graph-based framework for generating group counterfactual explanations to audit model fairness, a crucial aspect of trustworthy machine learning. Counterfactual explanations are instrumental in understanding and mitigating unfairness by revealing how inputs should change to achieve a desired outcome. Our framework, named Feasible Group Counterfactual Explanations (FGCEs), captures real-world feasibility constraints and constructs subgroups with similar counterfactuals, setting it apart from existing methods. It also addresses key trade-offs in counterfactual generation, including the balance between the number of counterfactuals, their associated costs, and the breadth of coverage achieved. To evaluate these trade-offs and assess fairness, we propose measures tailored to group counterfactual generation. Our experimental results on benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in managing feasibility constraints and trade-offs, as well as the potential of our proposed metrics in identifying and quantifying fairness issues.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. A.-H. Karimi, G. Barthe, B. Schölkopf, and I. Valera, “A survey of algorithmic recourse: contrastive explanations and consequential recommendations,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1–29, 2022.
  2. F. Bodria, F. Giannotti, R. Guidotti, F. Naretto, D. Pedreschi, and S. Rinzivillo, “Benchmarking and survey of explanation methods for black box models,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1719–1778, 2023.
  3. R. Dwivedi, D. Dave, H. Naik, S. Singhal, R. Omer, P. Patel, B. Qian, Z. Wen, T. Shah, G. Morgan et al., “Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 1–33, 2023.
  4. C. Fragkathoulas, V. Papanikou, D. P. Karidi, and E. Pitoura, “On explaining unfairness: An overview,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW), 2024, pp. 226–236.
  5. S. Verma, V. Boonsanong, M. Hoang, K. Hines, J. Dickerson, and C. Shah, “Counterfactual explanations and algorithmic recourses for machine learning: A review,” ACM Comput. Surv., jul 2024, just Accepted. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3677119
  6. R. Poyiadzi, K. Sokol, R. Santos-Rodriguez, T. De Bie, and P. Flach, “Face: feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations,” in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020, pp. 344–350.
  7. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “” why should i trust you?” explaining the predictions of any classifier,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2016, pp. 1135–1144.
  8. R. K. Mothilal, A. Sharma, and C. Tan, “Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations,” in Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2020, pp. 607–617.
  9. S. Sharma, J. Henderson, and J. Ghosh, “Certifai: A common framework to provide explanations and analyse the fairness and robustness of black-box models,” in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, ser. AIES ’20.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 166–172. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375812
  10. L. E. Bynum, J. R. Loftus, and J. Stoyanovich, “Counterfactuals for the future,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 12, 2023, pp. 14 144–14 152.
  11. K. Rawal and H. Lakkaraju, “Beyond individualized recourse: Interpretable and interactive summaries of actionable recourses,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 187–12 198, 2020.
  12. D. Ley, S. Mishra, and D. Magazzeni, “Globe-ce: A translation-based approach for global counterfactual explanations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17021, 2023.
  13. L. Kavouras, K. Tsopelas, G. Giannopoulos, D. Sacharidis, E. Psaroudaki, N. Theologitis, D. Rontogiannis, D. Fotakis, and I. Emiris, “Fairness aware counterfactuals for subgroups,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024.
  14. M. Rosenblatt, “Remarks on Some Nonparametric Estimates of a Density Function,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 832 – 837, 1956. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177728190
  15. D. S. Hochba, “Approximation algorithms for np-hard problems,” ACM Sigact News, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 40–52, 1997.
  16. B. C. Tansel, R. L. Francis, and T. J. Lowe, “Location on networks: A survey. part i: The p-center and p-median problems,” Management Science, pp. 482–497, 1983.
  17. M. Daskin, “Network and discrete location: models, algorithms and applications,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 763–764, 1997.
  18. S. Verma and J. Rubin, “Fairness definitions explained,” in FairWare@ICSE.   ACM, 2018, pp. 1–7.
  19. A. Kuratomi, E. Pitoura, P. Papapetrou, T. Lindgren, and P. Tsaparas, “Measuring the burden of (un) fairness using counterfactuals,” in Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases.   Springer, 2022, pp. 402–417.
  20. A. B. Arrieta, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. García, S. Gil-López, D. Molina, R. Benjamins et al., “Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai,” Information fusion, vol. 58, pp. 82–115, 2020.
  21. A. Adadi and M. Berrada, “Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai),” IEEE access, vol. 6, pp. 52 138–52 160, 2018.
  22. R. Guidotti, “Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 1–55, 2022.
  23. M. A. Prado-Romero, B. Prenkaj, G. Stilo, and F. Giannotti, “A survey on graph counterfactual explanations: definitions, methods, evaluation, and research challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1–37, 2024.
  24. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, “Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr,” Harv. JL & Tech., vol. 31, p. 841, 2017.
  25. R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, F. Giannotti, D. Pedreschi, S. Ruggieri, and F. Turini, “Factual and counterfactual explanations for black box decision making,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 14–23, 2019.
  26. K. Kanamori, T. Takagi, K. Kobayashi, and H. Arimura, “Dace: Distribution-aware counterfactual explanation by mixed-integer linear optimization.” in IJCAI, 2020, pp. 2855–2862.
  27. S. Goethals, D. Martens, and T. Calders, “Precof: counterfactual explanations for fairness,” Machine Learning, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 3111–3142, 2024.
  28. C. Russell, “Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations,” in Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2019, pp. 20–28.
  29. B. Ustun, A. Spangher, and Y. Liu, “Actionable recourse in linear classification,” in Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2019, pp. 10–19.
  30. K. Kanamori, T. Takagi, K. Kobayashi, and Y. Ike, “Counterfactual explanation trees: Transparent and consistent actionable recourse with decision trees,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 151, pp. 1846–1870, 2022.
  31. E. Carrizosa, J. Ramírez-Ayerbe, and D. R. Morales, “Generating collective counterfactual explanations in score-based classification via mathematical optimization,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 238, p. 121954, 2024.
  32. E. Pitoura, K. Stefanidis, and G. Koutrika, “Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview,” The VLDB Journal, pp. 1–28, 2022.
  33. N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, 2021.
  34. S. A. Friedler, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasubramanian, “The (im) possibility of fairness: Different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 136–143, 2021.
  35. S. Caton and C. Haas, “Fairness in machine learning: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1–38, 2024.
  36. A. Castelnovo, R. Crupi, G. Greco, D. Regoli, I. G. Penco, and A. C. Cosentini, “A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4209, 2022.
  37. S. Mitchell, M. OSullivan, and I. Dunning, “Pulp: a linear programming toolkit for python,” The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 65, 2011.
  38. T. Le Quy, A. Roy, V. Iosifidis, W. Zhang, and E. Ntoutsi, “A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learning,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 12, no. 3, p. e1452, 2022.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.