FGCE: Feasible Group Counterfactual Explanations for Auditing Fairness
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- D. Ley, S. Mishra, and D. Magazzeni, “Globe-ce: A translation-based approach for global counterfactual explanations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17021, 2023.
- 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.
- 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
- D. S. Hochba, “Approximation algorithms for np-hard problems,” ACM Sigact News, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 40–52, 1997.
- 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.
- M. Daskin, “Network and discrete location: models, algorithms and applications,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 763–764, 1997.
- S. Verma and J. Rubin, “Fairness definitions explained,” in FairWare@ICSE. ACM, 2018, pp. 1–7.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- R. Guidotti, “Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 1–55, 2022.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- S. Goethals, D. Martens, and T. Calders, “Precof: counterfactual explanations for fairness,” Machine Learning, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 3111–3142, 2024.
- C. Russell, “Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations,” in Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2019, pp. 20–28.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- E. Pitoura, K. Stefanidis, and G. Koutrika, “Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview,” The VLDB Journal, pp. 1–28, 2022.
- 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.
- 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.
- S. Caton and C. Haas, “Fairness in machine learning: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1–38, 2024.
- 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.
- S. Mitchell, M. OSullivan, and I. Dunning, “Pulp: a linear programming toolkit for python,” The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 65, 2011.
- 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.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.