Individualised Counterfactual Examples Using Conformal Prediction Intervals

James Adams, Gesine Reinert, Lukasz Szpruch, Carsten Maple, Andrew Elliott
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications, PMLR 266:425-444, 2025.

Abstract

Counterfactual explanations for black-box models aim to provide insight into an algorithmic decision to its recipient. For a binary classification problem an individual counterfactual details which features might be changed for the model to infer the opposite class. High-dimensional feature spaces that are typical of machine learning classification models admit many possible counterfactual examples to a decision, and so it is important to identify additional criteria to select the most useful counterfactuals. In this paper, we explore the idea that the counterfactuals should be maximally in- formative when considering the knowledge of a specific individual about the underlying classifier. To quantify this information gain we explicitly model the knowledge of the individual, and assess the uncertainty of predictions which the individual makes by the width of a conformal prediction interval. Regions of feature space where the prediction interval is wide correspond to areas where the confidence in decision making is low, and an additional counterfactual example might be more informative to an individual. To explore and evaluate our individualised conformal prediction interval counterfactuals (CPICFs), first we present a synthetic data set on a hypercube which allows us to fully visualise the decision boundary, conformal intervals via three different methods, and resultant CPICFs. Second, in this synthetic data set we explore the impact of a single CPICF on the knowledge of an individual locally around the original query. Finally, in both our synthetic data set and a complex real world dataset with a combination of continuous and discrete variables, we measure the utility of these counterfactuals via data augmentation, testing the performance on a held out set.

Cite this Paper


BibTeX
@InProceedings{pmlr-v266-adams25a, title = {Individualised Counterfactual Examples Using Conformal Prediction Intervals}, author = {Adams, James and Reinert, Gesine and Szpruch, Lukasz and Maple, Carsten and Elliott, Andrew}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications}, pages = {425--444}, year = {2025}, editor = {Nguyen, Khuong An and Luo, Zhiyuan and Papadopoulos, Harris and Löfström, Tuwe and Carlsson, Lars and Boström, Henrik}, volume = {266}, series = {Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, month = {10--12 Sep}, publisher = {PMLR}, pdf = {https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mlresearch/v266/main/assets/adams25a/adams25a.pdf}, url = {https://proceedings.mlr.press/v266/adams25a.html}, abstract = {Counterfactual explanations for black-box models aim to provide insight into an algorithmic decision to its recipient. For a binary classification problem an individual counterfactual details which features might be changed for the model to infer the opposite class. High-dimensional feature spaces that are typical of machine learning classification models admit many possible counterfactual examples to a decision, and so it is important to identify additional criteria to select the most useful counterfactuals. In this paper, we explore the idea that the counterfactuals should be maximally in- formative when considering the knowledge of a specific individual about the underlying classifier. To quantify this information gain we explicitly model the knowledge of the individual, and assess the uncertainty of predictions which the individual makes by the width of a conformal prediction interval. Regions of feature space where the prediction interval is wide correspond to areas where the confidence in decision making is low, and an additional counterfactual example might be more informative to an individual. To explore and evaluate our individualised conformal prediction interval counterfactuals (CPICFs), first we present a synthetic data set on a hypercube which allows us to fully visualise the decision boundary, conformal intervals via three different methods, and resultant CPICFs. Second, in this synthetic data set we explore the impact of a single CPICF on the knowledge of an individual locally around the original query. Finally, in both our synthetic data set and a complex real world dataset with a combination of continuous and discrete variables, we measure the utility of these counterfactuals via data augmentation, testing the performance on a held out set.} }
Endnote
%0 Conference Paper %T Individualised Counterfactual Examples Using Conformal Prediction Intervals %A James Adams %A Gesine Reinert %A Lukasz Szpruch %A Carsten Maple %A Andrew Elliott %B Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications %C Proceedings of Machine Learning Research %D 2025 %E Khuong An Nguyen %E Zhiyuan Luo %E Harris Papadopoulos %E Tuwe Löfström %E Lars Carlsson %E Henrik Boström %F pmlr-v266-adams25a %I PMLR %P 425--444 %U https://proceedings.mlr.press/v266/adams25a.html %V 266 %X Counterfactual explanations for black-box models aim to provide insight into an algorithmic decision to its recipient. For a binary classification problem an individual counterfactual details which features might be changed for the model to infer the opposite class. High-dimensional feature spaces that are typical of machine learning classification models admit many possible counterfactual examples to a decision, and so it is important to identify additional criteria to select the most useful counterfactuals. In this paper, we explore the idea that the counterfactuals should be maximally in- formative when considering the knowledge of a specific individual about the underlying classifier. To quantify this information gain we explicitly model the knowledge of the individual, and assess the uncertainty of predictions which the individual makes by the width of a conformal prediction interval. Regions of feature space where the prediction interval is wide correspond to areas where the confidence in decision making is low, and an additional counterfactual example might be more informative to an individual. To explore and evaluate our individualised conformal prediction interval counterfactuals (CPICFs), first we present a synthetic data set on a hypercube which allows us to fully visualise the decision boundary, conformal intervals via three different methods, and resultant CPICFs. Second, in this synthetic data set we explore the impact of a single CPICF on the knowledge of an individual locally around the original query. Finally, in both our synthetic data set and a complex real world dataset with a combination of continuous and discrete variables, we measure the utility of these counterfactuals via data augmentation, testing the performance on a held out set.
APA
Adams, J., Reinert, G., Szpruch, L., Maple, C. & Elliott, A.. (2025). Individualised Counterfactual Examples Using Conformal Prediction Intervals. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 266:425-444 Available from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v266/adams25a.html.

Related Material