CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation, is introduced, believed to be the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework.
Abstract
Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent work incorporates additional properties such as sparsity, actionability and plausibility. Despite this progress, fair and systematic evaluation remains challenging. Existing studies often rely on different data splits, predictive models, and evaluation metrics, which limits objective comparison across methods. To fill this gap, we introduce CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation. CEL includes 18 datasets of varying size and complexity and provides implementations or reimplementations of 14 widely used counterfactual methods. Using this standardized setup, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative comparison across a variety of methods on datasets that differ in size, number, and types of attributes. The evaluation protocol incorporates multiple complementary metrics capturing validity, coverage, sparsity, proximity, and distributional plausibility, including density- and outlier-based measures to assess the realism of generated counterfactuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework. While prior libraries and benchmarking efforts exist in the literature, many are outdated, limited in scope, or lack consistent evaluation protocols. The proposed benchmark aims to improve reproducibility, enable fair comparison, and establish a workbench for the development of future counterfactual explanation methods.
It is argued that robust CFE methods should be evaluated through a common protocol that specifies the model changes, measures their realized behavioral magnitude, and keeps generation performance separate from robustness.
It is found that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method.
Mattia Cerrato, Otto Sahlgren, Xenia Heilmann· 0 citations
The Amortized Variational Counterfactual Generator (AVCG), a generalized optimization framework that formulates counterfactual generation as optimization over an arbitrary distribution of plausible predictive hypotheses rather than a single deterministic predictor, is proposed.
J. Duell, Alejandro Jimenez Rodriguez, Mahault Albarracin· 0 citations
This approach is the first to efficiently generate CFs that are realistic, low-cost and feasible, and accommodates both hard feasible constraints, specified by domain knowledge users, and soft feasible constraints, inferred automatically via causal inference from the dataset.
Kleopatra Markou, V. Kalogeraki, Dimitrios Gunopulos· 0 citations
Explainability in recommender systems (RS) remains a pivotal challenge. Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a particularly actionable paradigm, offering intuitive “what-if” reasoning. However, their evaluation lacks principled standards. Current metrics primarily assess whether explanations change the top-ranke...
Amir Reza Mohammadi, Andreas Peintner, Michael M. Müller et al.· ACM Transactions on Recommen...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.