Counterfactual explanations have emerged as an important tool to understand, debug, and audit complex machine learning models. To offer global counterfactual explainability, state-of-the-art methods construct summaries of local explanations, offering a trade-off among conciseness, counterfactual effectiveness, and counterfactual cost or burden imposed on instances. In this work, we provide a concise formulation of the problem of identifying global counterfactuals and establish principled criteria for comparing solutions, drawing inspiration from Pareto dominance. We introduce innovative algorithms designed to address the challenge of finding global counterfactuals for either the entire input space or specific partitions, employing clustering and decision trees as key components. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive experimental evaluation, considering various instances of the problem and comparing our proposed algorithms with state-of-the-art methods. The results highlight the consistent capability of our algorithms to generate meaningful and interpretable global counterfactual explanations.

Fairness is steadily becoming a crucial requirement of Machine Learning (ML) systems. A particularly important notion is subgroup fairness, i.e., fairness in subgroups of individuals that are defined by more than one attributes. Identifying bias in subgroups can become both computationally challenging, as well as problematic with respect to comprehensibility and intuitiveness of the finding to end users. In this work we focus on the latter aspects; we propose an explainability method tailored to identifying potential bias in subgroups and visualizing the findings in a user friendly manner to end users. In particular, we extend the ALE plots explainability method, proposing FALE (Fairness aware Accumulated Local Effects) plots, a method for measuring the change in fairness for an affected population corresponding to different values of a feature (attribute). We envision FALE to function as an efficient, user friendly, comprehensible and reliable first-stage tool for identifying subgroups with potential bias issues.

We start with revisiting (and generalizing) existing notions and introducing new, more refined notions of subgroup fairness. We aim to (a) formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse, i.e. receive the desired outcome, either at the micro level, considering members of the subgroup individually, or at the macro level, considering the subgroup as a whole, and (b) introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse. We accompany these notions with an efficient, model-agnostic, highly parameterizable, and explainable framework for evaluating subgroup fairness. We demonstrate the advantages, the wide applicability, and the efficiency of our approach through a thorough experimental evaluation of different benchmark datasets.

This paper studies algorithmic fairness when the protected attribute is location. To handle protected attributes that are continuous, such as age or income, the standard approach is to discretize the domain into predefined groups, and compare algorithmic outcomes across groups. However, applying this idea to location raises concerns of gerrymandering and may introduce statistical bias. Prior work addresses these concerns but only for regularly spaced locations, while raising other issues, most notably its inability to discern regions that are likely to exhibit spatial unfairness. Similar to established notions of algorithmic fairness, we define spatial fairness as the statistical independence of outcomes from location. This translates into requiring that for each region of space, the distribution of outcomes is identical inside and outside the region. To allow for localized discrepancies in the distribution of outcomes, we compare how well two competing hypotheses explain the observed outcomes. The null hypothesis assumes spatial fairness, while the alternate allows different distributions inside and outside regions. Their goodness of fit is then assessed by a likelihood ratio test. If there is no significant difference in how well the two hypotheses explain the observed outcomes, we conclude that the algorithm is spatially fair.