Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions

Predictive models are being increasingly used to support consequential decision making at the individual level in contexts such as pretrial bail and loan approval. As a result, there is increasing social and legal pressure to provide explanations that help the affected individuals not only to understand why a prediction was output, but also how to act to obtain a desired outcome. To this end, several works have proposed optimization-based methods to generate nearest counterfactual explanations. However, these methods are often restricted to a particular subset of models (e.g., decision trees or linear models) and differentiable distance functions. In contrast, we build on standard theory and tools from formal verification and propose a novel algorithm that solves a sequence of satisfiability problems, where both the distance function (objective) and predictive model (constraints) are represented as logic formulae. As shown by our experiments on real-world data, our algorithm is: i) model-agnostic ({non-}linear, {non-}differentiable, {non-}convex); ii) data-type-agnostic (heterogeneous features); iii) distance-agnostic ($\ell_0, \ell_1, \ell_\infty$, and combinations thereof); iv) able to generate plausible and diverse counterfactuals for any sample (i.e., 100% coverage); and v) at provably optimal distances.

[1]  Chris Russell,et al.  Efficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanations , 2019, FAT.

[2]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[3]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  A constructive approach to the problem of program correctness , 1968 .

[4]  Daniel Kroening,et al.  Decision Procedures - An Algorithmic Point of View , 2008, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series.

[5]  M. Gario,et al.  PySMT: a Solver-Agnostic Library for Fast Prototyping of SMT-Based Algorithms , 2015 .

[6]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation , 2017 .

[7]  Paul Voigt,et al.  The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) , 2017 .

[8]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  On SAT Modulo Theories and Optimization Problems , 2006, SAT.

[9]  Nikolaj Bjørner,et al.  Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver , 2008, TACAS.

[10]  Fabrizio Silvestri,et al.  Interpretable Predictions of Tree-based Ensembles via Actionable Feature Tweaking , 2017, KDD.

[11]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead , 2018, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[13]  Chris Russell,et al.  Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR , 2017, ArXiv.

[14]  Stefan Rüping,et al.  Learning interpretable models , 2006 .

[15]  Yang Liu,et al.  Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification , 2018, FAT.

[16]  Alex Alves Freitas,et al.  Comprehensible classification models: a position paper , 2014, SKDD.

[17]  Chandan Singh,et al.  Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  David Gunning,et al.  DARPA's explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program , 2019, IUI.

[19]  Adrian Weller,et al.  Challenges for Transparency , 2017, ArXiv.

[20]  Lauretta O. Osho,et al.  Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming , 2013 .

[21]  I-Cheng Yeh,et al.  The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[22]  Cormac Flanagan,et al.  Avoiding exponential explosion: generating compact verification conditions , 2001, POPL '01.

[23]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Please Stop Explaining Black Box Models for High Stakes Decisions , 2018, ArXiv.

[24]  Zachary Chase Lipton The mythos of model interpretability , 2016, ACM Queue.

[25]  Timon Gehr,et al.  An abstract domain for certifying neural networks , 2019, Proc. ACM Program. Lang..

[26]  Min Wu,et al.  Safety Verification of Deep Neural Networks , 2016, CAV.

[27]  Andrew D. Selbst,et al.  Big Data's Disparate Impact , 2016 .

[28]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[29]  Robert W. Floyd,et al.  Assigning Meanings to Programs , 1993 .

[30]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Models , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[31]  Tiziana Margaria,et al.  Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems: a special issue for TACAS 2017 , 2001, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[32]  Roberto Sebastiani,et al.  Optimization in SMT with LA(Q) Cost Functions , 2012 .

[33]  Mykel J. Kochenderfer,et al.  Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying Deep Neural Networks , 2017, CAV.

[34]  Been Kim,et al.  Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning , 2017, 1702.08608.

[35]  M. Wegman,et al.  Global value numbers and redundant computations , 1988, POPL '88.

[36]  Mark N. Wegman,et al.  Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph , 1991, TOPL.