# On the Trade-offs between Adversarial Robustness and Actionable Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16452 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16452/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [Intriguing properties of neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6199/) (2013)
- [Adversarial examples in the physical world](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.02533/) (2016)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Gradient Descent Provably Optimizes Over-parameterized Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.02054/) (2018)
- [Compressed Sensing using Generative Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.03208/) (2017)
- [Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.06514/) (2018)
- [Adversarial Attacks and Defences: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.00069/) (2018)
- [Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.02584/) (2019)
- [Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11190/) (2019)
- [Generating Natural Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.11342/) (2017)
- [Learning Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09398/) (2019)
- [Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.03277/) (2019)
- [Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06831/) (2020)
- [A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04050/) (2020)
- [Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.02666/) (2021)
- [Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.13620/) (2021)
- [On the Adversarial Robustness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11313/) (2021)
- [Do Input Gradients Highlight Discriminative Features?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12781/) (2021)
- [Exploring Counterfactual Explanations Through the Lens of Adversarial Examples: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09992/) (2021)
- [Houdini: Fooling Deep Structured Prediction Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.05373/) (2017)
- [Inverse Classification for Comparison-based Interpretability in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.08443/) (2017)
- [The Intriguing Relation Between Counterfactual Explanations and Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.05487/) (2020)
- [Algorithmic Recourse in the Wild: Understanding the Impact of Data and Model Shifts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.11788/) (2020)
- [Rethinking Influence Functions of Neural Networks in the Over-parameterized Regime](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08297/) (2021)
- [On the Trade-Off between Actionable Explanations and the Right to be Forgotten](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14137/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As machine learning models are increasingly being employed in various high-stakes settings, it becomes important to ensure that predictions of these models are not only adversarially robust, but also readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, it is unclear if these two notions can be simultaneously achieved or if there exist trade-offs between them. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at studying the impact of adversarially robust models on actionable explanations which provide end users with a means for recourse. We theoretically and empirically analyze the cost (ease of implementation) and validity (probability of obtaining a positive model prediction) of recourses output by state-of-the-art algorithms when the underlying models are adversarially robust vs. non-robust. More specifically, we derive theoretical bounds on the differences between the cost and the validity of the recourses generated by state-of-the-art algorithms for adversarially robust vs. non-robust linear and non-linear models. Our empirical results with multiple real-world datasets validate our theoretical results and show the impact of varying degrees of model robustness on the cost and validity of the resulting recourses. Our analyses demonstrate that adversarially robust models significantly increase the cost and reduce the validity of the resulting recourses, thus shedding light on the inherent trade-offs between adversarial robustness and actionable explanations.