pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18418 · v1 · pith:JU534VZInew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.LG

P²CE: Model-Agnostic Plausible Pareto-Optimal Counterfactual Explanations

Arthur Hendricks Mendes de Oliveira , Giovani Valdrighi , Marcos Medeiros Raimundo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 01:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords counterfactual explanationsPareto optimalityplausibilityisolation forestSHAPmodel-agnosticfeasibilitymachine learning interpretability
0
0 comments X

The pith

P²CE generates a diverse set of plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations that trade off multiple feasibility criteria using an isolation forest and SHAP values.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to improve counterfactual explanations for machine learning decisions in areas like loan approvals by producing explanations that are both realistic and optimal across different feasibility measures. It introduces P²CE as a model-agnostic algorithm that first applies an isolation forest to keep generated explanations within the observed data distribution, then uses SHAP values to search efficiently for solutions that form a Pareto front. This front gives users multiple options, each representing a different optimal balance among feasibility notions, rather than a single compromise point. Empirical tests on three datasets show the method produces higher-quality solutions in less time than prior techniques. A sympathetic reader would care because current methods often force a single trade-off or generate unrealistic changes that users cannot act on.

Core claim

P²CE is an algorithm that generates plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations by employing an auxiliary isolation forest outlier detector to ensure explanations accord with the data distribution and by leveraging SHAP values to obtain optimal results with short computing times, regardless of the underlying model. It offers users a diverse set of optimal trade-offs between different notions of feasibility and demonstrates superior performance in solution quality and computational efficiency on three datasets compared to related techniques.

What carries the argument

P²CE algorithm, which combines isolation forest outlier detection for enforcing plausibility with SHAP-guided search to locate Pareto-optimal points across feasibility dimensions.

If this is right

  • Users obtain multiple non-dominated options instead of one compromise counterfactual.
  • The method remains applicable to any black-box classifier or regressor.
  • Explanations stay inside the empirical data distribution by construction.
  • Solution quality and run time improve over existing single-objective or non-Pareto approaches on the tested data.
  • The same pipeline supports different feasibility definitions without retraining the original model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The Pareto front could be post-processed to surface only those explanations that also satisfy domain-specific constraints such as monotonicity in certain features.
  • Because the method is model-agnostic, it could be wrapped around existing fairness toolkits to generate recourse options that also reduce group disparity.
  • If the isolation forest is replaced by a density estimator tuned to the target class, the plausibility guarantee might extend to regions that are rare but still decision-relevant.
  • The efficiency gain from SHAP suggests the same two-stage structure could accelerate other multi-objective explanation tasks such as finding minimal sufficient sets of features.

Load-bearing premise

The isolation forest reliably marks points as plausible if they match the training data distribution, and SHAP values suffice to reach globally optimal trade-offs without depending on the specific black-box model.

What would settle it

Run P²CE on a held-out dataset and check whether the returned explanations are dominated by some other method's solutions on at least two feasibility metrics simultaneously, or whether human raters consistently judge them as implausible.

read the original abstract

The increasing use of machine learning algorithms in social applications has raised concerns about fairness and transparency, leading to the development of counterfactual explanations. These explanations supports individuals to understand and potentially alter unfavorable decisions in areas such as loan applications, job selections, and more, by providing actionable changes to input features that would lead to a desired outcome. Existing methods often struggle to balance feasibility, plausibility, and computational efficiency. To address this, we introduce P$^2$CE, an algorithm for generating plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations, offering users a diverse set of optimal trade-offs between different notions of feasibility. P$^2$CE employs an auxiliary isolation forest outlier detector to ensure that explanations are in accordance with the data distribution and leverages SHAP values to obtain optimal results with short computing times, regardless of the underlying model. Our algorithm was empirically evaluated on three datasets, demonstrating superior performance in terms of both solution quality and computational efficiency compared to related techniques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces P²CE, a model-agnostic algorithm for generating plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations. It combines an isolation forest outlier detector to align explanations with the data distribution and SHAP values to achieve efficiency independent of the underlying model. The method is claimed to provide users with a diverse set of optimal trade-offs across feasibility notions and is empirically evaluated on three datasets, where it demonstrates superior solution quality and computational efficiency relative to related techniques.

Significance. If the empirical results hold with proper validation, the work could contribute to XAI by shifting from single counterfactuals to Pareto fronts that explicitly trade off multiple feasibility criteria, which is practically useful in high-stakes domains. The reliance on standard, off-the-shelf components (isolation forest, SHAP) is a potential strength if the experiments demonstrate that these components deliver the claimed gains without introducing new hyperparameters or model-specific assumptions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and experimental evaluation] Abstract and experimental evaluation: the central claim of superior performance in solution quality and computational efficiency is asserted without any reported metrics, baselines, statistical tests, dataset details, or usage protocol. This absence is load-bearing for the empirical contribution and prevents assessment of whether the claimed advantages are real or artifactual.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will revise the paper to strengthen the presentation of the empirical results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and experimental evaluation] Abstract and experimental evaluation: the central claim of superior performance in solution quality and computational efficiency is asserted without any reported metrics, baselines, statistical tests, dataset details, or usage protocol. This absence is load-bearing for the empirical contribution and prevents assessment of whether the claimed advantages are real or artifactual.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and experimental evaluation section must include explicit quantitative details to substantiate the claims. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report concrete metrics (e.g., hypervolume or coverage for solution quality, wall-clock time for efficiency), name the baselines, specify the three datasets with their sizes and feature counts, and note the statistical tests employed. The experimental section will be augmented with a clear usage protocol describing hyperparameter settings, number of runs, and evaluation procedure. These additions will make the empirical contribution fully assessable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical algorithm P²CE that combines standard, externally defined components (isolation forest for outlier detection and SHAP values) with multi-objective optimization to generate counterfactuals. The central claims concern measured performance on three datasets relative to baselines; these are not derived by construction from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions within the paper. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms are described beyond standard use of isolation forest and SHAP.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption An isolation forest outlier detector can reliably identify implausible counterfactuals by reference to the training data distribution
    Invoked to guarantee that generated explanations remain in accordance with the data distribution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5703 in / 1126 out tokens · 30578 ms · 2026-06-27T01:10:42.167991+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C.: Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr. Harv. JL & Tech.31, 841 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp

    Karimi, A.-H., Sch¨ olkopf, B., Valera, I.: Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 353–362 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    ACM Computing Surveys56(12), 1–42 (2024)

    Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K., Dickerson, J., Shah, C.: Coun- terfactual explanations and algorithmic recourses for machine learning: A review. ACM Computing Surveys56(12), 1–42 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp

    Mothilal, R.K., Sharma, A., Tan, C.: Explaining machine learning classi- fiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 607–617 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1–33 (2022) 16

    Raimundo, M.M., Nonato, L.G., Poco, J.: Mining pareto-optimal counterfactual antecedents with a branch-and-bound model-agnostic algorithm. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1–33 (2022) 16

    2022

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp

    Kanamori, K., Takagi, T., Kobayashi, K., Arimura, H.: Dace: distribution-aware counterfactual explanation by mixed-integer linear optimization. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2855–2862 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp

    Poyiadzi, R., Sokol, K., Santos-Rodriguez, R., De Bie, T., Flach, P.: Face: feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 344–350 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Annals of statistics, 1189–1232 (2001)

    Friedman, J.H.: Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, 1189–1232 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics24(1), 44–65 (2015)

    Goldstein, A., Kapelner, A., Bleich, J., Pitkin, E.: Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics24(1), 44–65 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

    Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., Guestrin, C.: ” 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, pp. 1135– 1144 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.-I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp

    Ustun, B., Spangher, A., Liu, Y.: Actionable recourse in linear classification. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 10–19 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    URL: https://christophm

    Molnar, C.: A guide for making black box models explainable. URL: https://christophm. github. io/interpretable-ml-book, 3 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery38(5), 2770–2824 (2024)

    Guidotti, R.: Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery38(5), 2770–2824 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp

    Russell, C.: Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 20–28 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Dutta, S., Long, J., Mishra, S., Tilli, C., Magazzeni, D.: Robust counterfactual explanations for tree-based ensembles. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5742–5756 (2022). PMLR

    2022

  17. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Lucic, A., Oosterhuis, H., Haned, H., Rijke, M.: Focus: Flexible optimizable counterfactual explanations for tree ensembles. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 5313–5322 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    17 In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Parmentier, A., Vidal, T.: Optimal counterfactual explanations in tree ensembles. 17 In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8422–8431 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  19. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 364–377 (2022)

    Augustin, M., Boreiko, V., Croce, F., Hein, M.: Diffusion visual counterfactual explanations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 364–377 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp

    Karimi, A.-H., Barthe, G., Balle, B., Valera, I.: Model-agnostic counterfactual explanations for consequential decisions. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 895–905 (2020). PMLR

    2020

  21. [21]

    Data mining and knowledge discovery38(5), 2665– 2703 (2024)

    Brughmans, D., Leyman, P., Martens, D.: Nice: an algorithm for nearest instance counterfactual explanations. Data mining and knowledge discovery38(5), 2665– 2703 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery38(5), 2825–2862 (2024)

    Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Naretto, F., Turini, F., Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F.: Stable and actionable explanations of black-box models through factual and counterfactual rules. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery38(5), 2825–2862 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    In: 2008 Eighth Ieee International Conference on Data Mining, pp

    Liu, F.T., Ting, K.M., Zhou, Z.-H.: Isolation forest. In: 2008 Eighth Ieee International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 413–422 (2008). IEEE

    2008

  24. [24]

    Bouman, R., Bukhsh, Z., Heskes, T.: Unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms on real-world data: how many do we need? Journal of Machine Learning Research 25(105), 1–34 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp

    Khan, Z.Q., Hill, D., Masoomi, A., Bone, J.T., Dy, J.: Analyzing explainer robustness via probabilistic lipschitzness of prediction functions. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 1378–1386 (2024). PMLR

    2024

  26. [26]

    Hopkins, Mark, Reeber, Erik, Forman, George, Suermondt, and Jaap

    Hofmann, H.: Statlog (German Credit Data). UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5NC77 (1994)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5nc77 1994

  27. [27]

    Gal Yona and Guy Rothblum

    Yeh, I.-C.: default of credit card clients. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C55S3H (2016)

    work page doi:10.24432/c55s3h 2016

  28. [28]

    Daniel Bj¨ orkegren and Darrell Grissen

    Becker, B., Kohavi, R.: Adult. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20 (1996)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5xw20 1996

  29. [29]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., Koyama, M.: Optuna: A next- generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. KDD ’19, pp. 2623–2631. Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330701 . htt...

    work page doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 2019

  30. [30]

    IEEE transac- tions on knowledge and data engineering33(4), 1479–1489 (2019)

    Hariri, S., Kind, M.C., Brunner, R.J.: Extended isolation forest. IEEE transac- tions on knowledge and data engineering33(4), 1479–1489 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Shrikumar, A., Greenside, P., Kundaje, A.: Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3145–3153 (2017). PMlR

    2017

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03888 (2018) 19

    Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., Lee, S.-I.: Consistent individualized feature attri- bution for tree ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03888 (2018) 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018