Counterfactual Explanation

Current deep learning models are not designed to simultaneously address three fundamental questions: predict class labels to solve a given classification task (the "What?"), simulate changes in the situation to evaluate how this impacts class predictions (the "How?"), and imagine how the scenario should change to result in different class predictions (the "Why not?"). While current approaches in causal representation learning and concept interpretability are designed to address some of these questions individually (such as Concept Bottleneck Models, which address both ``what'' and ``how'' questions), no current deep learning model is specifically built to answer all of them at the same time. To bridge this gap, we introduce CounterFactual Concept Bottleneck Models (CF-CBMs), a class of models designed to efficiently address the above queries all at once without the need to run post-hoc searches. Our experimental results demonstrate that CF-CBMs: achieve classification accuracy comparable to black-box models and existing CBMs (“What?”), rely on fewer important concepts leading to simpler explanations (“How?”), and produce interpretable, concept-based counterfactuals (“Why not?”). Additionally, we show that training the counterfactual generator jointly with the CBM leads to two key improvements: (i) it alters the model's decision-making process, making the model rely on fewer important concepts (leading to simpler explanations), and (ii) it significantly increases the causal effect of concept interventions on class predictions, making the model more responsive to these changes.

The need to explain decisions made by AI systems is driven by both recent regulation and user demand. The decisions are often explainable only post hoc. In counterfactual explanations, one may ask what constitutes the best counterfactual explanation. Clearly, multiple criteria must be taken into account, although "distance from the sample" is a key criterion. Recent methods that consider the plausibility of a counterfactual seem to sacrifice this original objective. Here, we present a system that provides high-likelihood explanations that are, at the same time, close and sparse. We show that the search for the most likely explanations satisfying many common desiderata for counterfactual explanations can be modeled using Mixed-Integer Optimization (MIO). We use a Sum-Product Network (SPN) to estimate the likelihood of a counterfactual. To achieve that, we propose an MIO formulation of an SPN, which can be of independent interest. The source code with examples is available at https://github.com/Epanemu/LiCE.

Reward models (RMs) are a crucial component in the alignment of large language models’ (LLMs) outputs with human values. RMs approximate human preferences over possible LLM responses to the same prompt by predicting and comparing reward scores. However, as they are typically modified versions of LLMs with scalar output heads, RMs are large black boxes whose predictions are not explainable. More transparent RMs would enable improved trust in the alignment of LLMs. In this work, we propose to use contrastive explanations to explain any binary response comparison made by an RM. Specifically, we generate a diverse set of new comparisons similar to the original one to characterise the RM’s local behaviour. The perturbed responses forming the new comparisons are generated to explicitly modify manually specified high-level evaluation attributes, on which analyses of RM behaviour are grounded. In quantitative experiments, we validate the effectiveness of our method for finding high-quality contrastive explanations. We then showcase the qualitative usefulness of our method for investigating global sensitivity of RMs to each evaluation attribute, and demonstrate how representative examples can be automatically extracted to explain and compare behaviours of different RMs. We see our method as a flexible framework for RM explanation, providing a basis for more interpretable and trustworthy LLM alignment.

Despite the increasing effectiveness of language models, their reasoning capabilities remain underdeveloped. In particular, causal reasoning through counterfactual question answering is lacking. This work aims to bridge this gap. We first derive novel metrics that balance accuracy in factual and counterfactual questions, capturing a more complete view of the reasoning abilities of language models than traditional factual-only based metrics. Second, we propose several fine-tuning approaches that aim to elicit better reasoning mechanisms, in the sense of the proposed metrics. Finally, we evaluate the performance of the fine-tuned language models in a variety of realistic scenarios. In particular, we investigate to what extent our fine-tuning approaches systemically achieve better generalization with respect to the base models in several problems that require, among others, inductive and deductive reasoning capabilities.

Hindsight relabeling is a powerful tool for overcoming sparsity in goal-conditioned reinforcement learning (GCRL), especially in certain domains such as navigation and locomotion. However, hindsight relabeling can struggle in object-centric domains. For example, suppose that the goal space consists of a robotic arm pushing a particular target block to a goal location. In this case, hindsight relabeling will give high rewards to any trajectory that does not interact with the block. However, these behaviors are only useful when the object is already at the goal---an extremely rare case in practice. A dataset dominated by these kinds of trajectories can complicate learning and lead to failures. In object-centric domains, one key intuition is that meaningful trajectories are often characterized by object-object interactions such as pushing the block with the gripper. To leverage this intuition, we introduce Hindsight Relabeling using Interactions (HInt), which combines interactions with hindsight relabeling to improve the sample efficiency of downstream RL. However, interactions do not have a consensus statistical definition that is tractable for downstream GCRL. Therefore, we propose a definition of interactions based on the concept of _null counterfactual_: a cause object is interacting with a target object if, in a world where the cause object did not exist, the target object would have different transition dynamics. We leverage this definition to infer interactions in Null Counterfactual Interaction Inference (NCII), which uses a ``nulling'' operation with a learned model to simulate absences and infer interactions. We demonstrate that NCII is able to achieve significantly improved interaction inference accuracy in both simple linear dynamics domains and dynamic robotic domains in Robosuite, Robot Air Hockey, and Franka Kitchen. Furthermore, we demonstrate that HInt improves sample efficiency by up to $4\times$ in these domains as goal-conditioned tasks.