Counterfactual explanation methods provide information on how feature values of individual observations must be changed to obtain a desired prediction. Despite the increasing amount of proposed methods in research, only a few implementations exist whose interfaces and requirements vary widely. In this work, we introduce the counterfactuals R package, which provides a modular and unified R6-based interface for counterfactual explanation methods. We implemented three existing counterfactual explanation methods and propose some optional methodological extensions to generalize these methods to different scenarios and to make them more comparable. We explain the structure and workflow of the package using real use cases and show how to integrate additional counterfactual explanation methods into the package. In addition, we compared the implemented methods for a variety of models and datasets with regard to the quality of their counterfactual explanations and their runtime behavior.

Automated hyperparameter optimization (HPO) has gained great popularity and is an important ingredient of most automated machine learning frameworks. The process of designing HPO algorithms, however, is still an unsystematic and manual process: Limitations of prior work are identified and the improvements proposed are -- even though guided by expert knowledge -- still somewhat arbitrary. This rarely allows for gaining a holistic understanding of which algorithmic components are driving performance, and carries the risk of overlooking good algorithmic design choices. We present a principled approach to automated benchmark-driven algorithm design applied to multifidelity HPO (MF-HPO): First, we formalize a rich space of MF-HPO candidates that includes, but is not limited to common HPO algorithms, and then present a configurable framework covering this space. To find the best candidate automatically and systematically, we follow a programming-by-optimization approach and search over the space of algorithm candidates via Bayesian optimization. We challenge whether the found design choices are necessary or could be replaced by more naive and simpler ones by performing an ablation analysis. We observe that using a relatively simple configuration, in some ways simpler than established methods, performs very well as long as some critical configuration parameters have the right value.

When developing and analyzing new hyperparameter optimization (HPO) methods, it is vital to empirically evaluate and compare them on well-curated benchmark suites. In this work, we list desirable properties and requirements for such benchmarks and propose a new set of challenging and relevant multifidelity HPO benchmark problems motivated by these requirements. For this, we revisit the concept of surrogate-based benchmarks and empirically compare them to more widely-used tabular benchmarks, showing that the latter ones may induce bias in performance estimation and ranking of HPO methods. We present a new surrogate-based benchmark suite for multifidelity HPO methods consisting of 9 benchmark collections that constitute over 700 multifidelity HPO problems in total. All our benchmarks also allow for querying of multiple optimization targets, enabling the benchmarking of multi-objective HPO. We examine and compare our benchmark suite with respect to the defined requirements and show that our benchmarks provide viable additions to existing suites.

Most machine learning algorithms are configured by one or several hyperparameters that must be carefully chosen and often considerably impact performance. To avoid a time consuming and unreproducible manual trial-and-error process to find well-performing hyperparameter configurations, various automatic hyperparameter optimization (HPO) methods, e.g., based on resampling error estimation for supervised machine learning, can be employed. After introducing HPO from a general perspective, this paper reviews important HPO methods such as grid or random search, evolutionary algorithms, Bayesian optimization, Hyperband and racing. It gives practical recommendations regarding important choices to be made when conducting HPO, including the HPO algorithms themselves, performance evaluation, how to combine HPO with ML pipelines, runtime improvements, and parallelization.

Counterfactual explanations are one of the most popular methods to make predictions of black box machine learning models interpretable by providing explanations in the form of `what-if scenarios'. Most current approaches optimize a collapsed, weighted sum of multiple objectives, which are naturally difficult to balance a-priori. We propose the Multi-Objective Counterfactuals (MOC) method, which translates the counterfactual search into a multi-objective optimization problem. Our approach not only returns a diverse set of counterfactuals with different trade-offs between the proposed objectives, but also maintains diversity in feature space. This enables a more detailed post-hoc analysis to facilitate better understanding and also more options for actionable user responses to change the predicted outcome. Our approach is also model-agnostic and works for numerical and categorical input features. We show the usefulness of MOC in concrete cases and compare our approach with state-of-the-art methods for counterfactual explanations.