Papers › Don't Explain Noise: Robust Counterfactuals for Randomized Ensembles

Don't Explain Noise: Robust Counterfactuals for Randomized Ensembles

27 May 2022arXiv:2205.14116archive 2025-07-28

Alexandre Forel, Axel Parmentier, Thibaut Vidal

Counterfactual explanations describe how to modify a feature vector in order to flip the outcome of a trained classifier. Obtaining robust counterfactual explanations is essential to provide valid algorithmic recourse and meaningful explanations. We study the robustness of explanations of randomized ensembles, which are always subject to algorithmic uncertainty even when the training data is fixed. We formalize the generation of robust counterfactual explanations as a probabilistic problem and show the link between the robustness of ensemble models and the robustness of base learners. We develop a practical method with good empirical performance and support it with theoretical guarantees for ensembles of convex base learners. Our results show that existing methods give surprisingly low robustness: the validity of naive counterfactuals is below 50% on most data sets and can fall to 20% on problems with many features. In contrast, our method achieves high robustness with only a small increase in the distance from counterfactual explanations to their initial observations.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from alexforel/robustcf4rf. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections