Plausible Counterfactuals: Auditing Deep Learning Classifiers with Realistic Adversarial Examples
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The last decade has witnessed the proliferation of Deep Learning models in many applications, achieving unrivaled levels of predictive performance. Unfortunately, the black-box nature of Deep Learning models has posed unanswered questions about what they learn from data. Certain application scenarios have highlighted the importance of assessing the bounds under which Deep Learning models operate, a problem addressed by using assorted approaches aimed at audiences from different domains. However, as the focus of the application is placed more on non-expert users, it results mandatory to provide the means for him/her to trust the model, just like a human gets familiar with a system or process: by understanding the hypothetical circumstances under which it fails. This is indeed the angular stone for this research work: to undertake an adversarial analysis of a Deep Learning model. The proposed framework constructs counterfactual examples by ensuring their plausibility, e.g. there is a reasonable probability that a human could generate them without resorting to a computer program. Therefore, this work must be regarded as valuable auditing exercise of the usable bounds a certain model is constrained within, thereby allowing for a much greater understanding of the capabilities and pitfalls of a model used in a real application. To this end, a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and multi-objective heuristics are used to furnish a plausible attack to the audited model, efficiently trading between the confusion of this model, the intensity and plausibility of the generated counterfactual. Its utility is showcased within a human face classification task, unveiling the enormous potential of the proposed framework.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 3.
9 papers.
- 2024Probabilistically Plausible Counterfactual Explanations with Normalizing Flowscited by 11
- 2022Framing Algorithmic Recourse for Anomaly Detectioncited by 5
- 2021An exact counterfactual-example-based approach to tree-ensemble models interpretabilitycited by 3
- 2022Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimizationcited by 3
- 2024Multi-SpaCE: Multi-Objective Subsequence-based Sparse Counterfactual Explanations for Multivariate Time Series Classificationcited by 3
- 2021Discriminative Attribution from Counterfactualscited by 2
- 2021Hierarchical Variational Autoencoder for Visual Counterfactualscited by 1
- 2023Identifying Spurious Correlations using Counterfactual Alignmentcited by 1
- 2024Generative Example-Based Explanations: Bridging the Gap between Generative Modeling and Explainabilitycited by 1
- 2024Multi-SpaCE: Multi-Objective Subsequence-based Sparse Counterfactual Explanations for Multivariate Time Series Classification14 Dec 2024
- 2024Generative Example-Based Explanations: Bridging the Gap between Generative Modeling and Explainability28 Oct 2024
- 2024Probabilistically Plausible Counterfactual Explanations with Normalizing Flows27 May 2024
- 2023Identifying Spurious Correlations using Counterfactual Alignment1 Dec 2023
- 2022Framing Algorithmic Recourse for Anomaly Detection29 Jun 2022
- 2022Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization20 May 2022
- 2021Discriminative Attribution from Counterfactuals28 Sep 2021
- 2021An exact counterfactual-example-based approach to tree-ensemble models interpretability31 May 2021
- 2021Hierarchical Variational Autoencoder for Visual Counterfactuals1 Feb 2021