Disagreement amongst counterfactual explanations: how transparency can be misleading

Dieter Brughmans (), Lissa Melis () and David Martens ()
Additional contact information
Dieter Brughmans: University of Antwerp
Lissa Melis: Pennsylvania State University
David Martens: University of Antwerp

TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, 2024, vol. 32, issue 3, No 4, 429-462

Abstract: Abstract Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used as an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique to provide stakeholders of complex machine learning algorithms with explanations for data-driven decisions. The popularity of counterfactual explanations resulted in a boom in the algorithms generating them. However, not every algorithm creates uniform explanations for the same instance. Even though in some contexts multiple possible explanations are beneficial, there are circumstances where diversity amongst counterfactual explanations results in a potential disagreement problem among stakeholders. Ethical issues arise when for example, malicious agents use this diversity to fairwash an unfair machine learning model by hiding sensitive features. As legislators worldwide tend to start including the right to explanations for data-driven, high-stakes decisions in their policies, these ethical issues should be understood and addressed. Our literature review on the disagreement problem in XAI reveals that this problem has never been empirically assessed for counterfactual explanations. Therefore, in this work, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis, on 40 data sets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192,000 explanations. Our study finds alarmingly high disagreement levels between the methods tested. A malicious user is able to both exclude and include desired features when multiple counterfactual explanations are available. This disagreement seems to be driven mainly by the data set characteristics and the type of counterfactual algorithm. XAI centers on the transparency of algorithmic decision-making, but our analysis advocates for transparency about this self-proclaimed transparency.

Keywords: XAI; Counterfactual explanations; Machine learning; Disagreement problem; 68T27 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11750-024-00670-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:topjnl:v:32:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11750-024-00670-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

DOI: 10.1007/s11750-024-00670-2

Access Statistics for this article

TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research is currently edited by Juan José Salazar González and Gustavo Bergantiños

More articles in TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research from Springer, Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().