Human explanations are often contrastive, meaning that they do not answer the indeterminate “Why?” question, but instead “Why P, rather than Q?”. For example, when a mortgage application is denied, we are not interested in a very long list of tiny little details that all contributed to that decision, but we want a to-the-point explanation that shows us what we minimally have to change to get the mortgage.
For example, the CEM method supports such an explanation by finding the minimal set of features that lead to prediction P (so this looks like an anchor explanation), and additionally a minimal set of features that should be absent to maintain decision P instead of the closest class Q (which is somewhat similar to a counterfactual ).
Read more...