Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
This work presents CounterNet, a novel end-to-end learning framework which integrates Machine Learning (ML) model training and the generation of corresponding counterfactual (CF) explanations into a single end-to-end pipeline.
Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting
Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014 · 1958
Earlier work this paper cites.
Model-Based Counterfactual Synthesizer for Interpretation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Virtual Event, Singapore) (KDD ’21) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1964–1974
Fan Yang, Sahan Suresh Alva, Jiahao Chen, and Xia Hu. 2021 · 1974
Earlier work this paper cites.
UCI Machine Learning Repository: Adult Data Set
R Kohavi and B Becker. 1996 · 1996
Earlier work this paper cites.
Covertype
Jock Blackard. 1998 · 1998
Earlier work this paper cites.
UCI repository of machine learning databases
Catherine Blake. 1998 · 1998
Earlier work this paper cites.
UCI machine learning repository
Arthur Asuncion and David Newman. 2007 · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance
Paulo Cortez and Alice Maria Gonçalves Silva. 2008 · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients
I-Cheng Yeh and Che-hui Lien. 2009 · 2009
Earlier work this paper cites.
Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 623–631
Yin Lou, Rich Caruana, Johannes Gehrke, and Giles Hooker. 2013 · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 1721–1730
Rich Caruana, Yin Lou, Johannes Gehrke, Paul Koch, Marc Sturm, and Noemie Elhadad. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Empirical evaluation of rectified activations in convolutional network
Bing Xu, Naiyan Wang, Tianqi Chen, and Mu Li. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 770–778
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 1675–1684
Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stephen H Bach, and Jure Leskovec. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
" Why should I trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 1135–1144
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 31
Aritra Ghosh, Himanshu Kumar, and P Shanti Sastry. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Formal guarantees on the robustness of a classifier against adversarial manipulation
Matthias Hein and Maksym Andriushchenko. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1885–1894
Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Open university learning analytics dataset
Jakub Kuzilek, Martin Hlosta, and Zdenek Zdrahal. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 4765–4774
Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 618–626
Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Smoothgrad: removing noise by adding noise
Daniel Smilkov, Nikhil Thorat, Been Kim, Fernanda Viégas, and Martin Wattenberg. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 3319–3328
Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017 · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR
Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2017 · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
’It’s Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage’ Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14
Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Michael Veale, Ulrik Lyngs, Jun Zhao, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Explanations Based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negatives. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Montréal, Canada) (NIPS’18) . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 590–601
Amit Dhurandhar, Pin-Yu Chen, Ronny Luss, Chun-Chen Tu, Paishun Ting, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, and Payel Das. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 607–617
Ramaravind K Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Learning model-agnostic counterfactual explanations for tabular data. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 . 3126–3132
Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Can I Still Trust You?: Understanding the Impact of Distribution Shifts on Algorithmic Recourses
Kaivalya Rawal, Ece Kamar, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Hydra: Pruning adversarially robust neural networks
Vikash Sehwag, Shiqi Wang, Prateek Mittal, and Suman Jana. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Explanation by Progressive Exaggeration. In International Conference on Learning Representations
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Explainable Machine Learning Challenge
FICO. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
A survey of methods for explaining black box models
Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Titanic - Machine Learning from Disaster
Kaggle. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net
Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Leveraging program analysis to reduce user-perceived latency in mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering . 176–186
Yixue Zhao, Marcelo Schmitt Laser, Yingjun Lyu, and Nenad Medvidovic. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
This looks like that: deep learning for interpretable image recognition. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 8930–8941
Chaofan Chen, Oscar Li, Daniel Tao, Alina Barnett, Cynthia Rudin, and Jonathan K Su. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Shalmali Joshi, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Warut Vijitbenjaronk, Been Kim, and Joydeep Ghosh. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Preserving causal constraints in counterfactual explanations for machine learning classifiers
Divyat Mahajan, Chenhao Tan, and Amit Sharma. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Sumedha Singla, Brian Pollack, Junxiang Chen, and Kayhan Batmanghelich. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning: A Review
Sahil Verma, John Dickerson, and Keegan Hines. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Impact of Response Latency on User Behaviour in Mobile Web Search. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval . 279–283
Ioannis Arapakis, Souneil Park, and Martin Pielot. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Evaluation of Neural Architectures Trained with Square Loss vs Cross-Entropy in Classification Tasks. In International Conference on Learning Representations
Like Hui and Mikhail Belkin. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 353–362
Amir-Hossein Karimi, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Isabel Valera. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G Goldstein, Jake M Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Beyond trivial counterfactual explanations with diverse valuable explanations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 1056–1065
Pau Rodríguez, Massimo Caccia, Alexandre Lacoste, Lee Zamparo, Issam Laradji, Laurent Charlin, and David Vazquez. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Learning Models for Actionable Recourse
Alexis Ross, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Osbert Bastani. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Generating interpretable counterfactual explanations by implicit minimisation of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 1756–1764
Lisa Schut, Oscar Key, Rory Mc Grath, Luca Costabello, Bogdan Sacaleanu, Yarin Gal, et al · 2021
Closest in time.
A survey of contrastive and counterfactual explanation generation methods for explainable artificial intelligence
Ilia Stepin, Jose M Alonso, Alejandro Catala, and Martín Pereira-Fariña. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse
Sohini Upadhyay, Shalmali Joshi, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Do Wider Neural Networks Really Help Adversarial Robustness?
Boxi Wu, Jinghui Chen, Deng Cai, Xiaofei He, and Quanquan Gu. 2021 · 2021
Closest in time.
Preserving Fine-Grain Feature Information in Classification via Entropic Regularization
Raphael Baena, Lucas Drumetz, and Vincent Gripon. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
VCNet: A self-explaining model for realistic counterfactual generation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD)
Victor Guyomard, Françoise Fessant, Thomas Guyet, Tassadit Bouadi, and Alexandre Termier. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
CounteRGAN: Generating counterfactuals for real-time recourse and interpretability using residual GANs. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence . PMLR, 1488–1497
Daniel Nemirovsky, Nicolas Thiebaut, Ye Xu, and Abhishek Gupta. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
Amortized generation of sequential algorithmic recourses for black-box models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 8512–8519
Sahil Verma, Keegan Hines, and John P Dickerson. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
On the fairness of causal algorithmic recourse. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 9584–9594
Julius Von Kügelgen, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Umang Bhatt, Isabel Valera, Adrian Weller, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.