# Disagreement amongst counterfactual explanations: How transparency can be deceptive

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12667 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12667/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.08813/) (2016)
- [Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.02584/) (2019)
- [The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.04135/) (2019)
- [Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11190/) (2019)
- [Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.10596/) (2020)
- [The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01602/) (2022)
- [Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.11165/) (2020)
- ["How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.06473/) (2019)
- [Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09749/) (2019)
- [Good Counterfactuals and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for Explainable AI (XAI)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.13997/) (2020)
- [Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01254/) (2022)
- [On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.13132/) (2020)
- [NICE: An Algorithm for Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.07411/) (2021)
- [Synthetic Benchmarks for Scientific Research in Explainable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.12543/) (2021)
- [Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.10295/) (2022)
- [Order in the Court: Explainable AI Methods Prone to Disagreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03287/) (2021)
- [GeCo: Quality Counterfactual Explanations in Real Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.01292/) (2021)
- [Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.07417/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Correctness of Explainable AI Algorithms for Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09740/) (2021)
- [Data Representing Ground-Truth Explanations to Evaluate XAI Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.09892/) (2020)
- [Reckoning with the Disagreement Problem: Explanation Consensus as a Training Objective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13299/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [The future of human-centric eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is not post-hoc explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00364/) (2023)
- [Manipulation Risks in Explainable AI: The Implications of the Disagreement Problem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13885/) (2023)
- [On Spectral Properties of Gradient-based Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10595/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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 datasets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192.0000 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 dataset 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