AI-driven outcomes can be challenging for end-users to understand. Explanations can address two key questions: "Why this outcome?" (factual) and "Why not another?" (counterfactual). While substantial efforts have been made to formalize factual explanations, a precise and comprehensive study of counterfactual explanations is still lacking. This paper proposes a formal definition of counterfactual explanations, proving some properties they satisfy, and examining the relationship with factual explanations. Given that multiple counterfactual explanations generally exist for a specific case, we also introduce a rigorous method to rank these counterfactual explanations, going beyond a simple minimality condition, and to identify the optimal ones. Our experiments with 12 real-world datasets highlight that, in most cases, a single optimal counterfactual explanation emerges. We also demonstrate, via three metrics, that the selected optimal explanation exhibits higher representativeness and can explain a broader range of elements than a random minimal counterfactual. This result highlights the effectiveness of our approach in identifying more robust and comprehensive counterfactual explanations.

We design an algorithm for finding counterfactuals with strong theoretical guarantees on its performance. For any monotone model $f : X^d \to \{0,1\}$ and instance $x^\star$, our algorithm makes \[ {S(f)^{O(\Delta_f(x^\star))}\cdot \log d}\] queries to $f$ and returns {an {\sl optimal}} counterfactual for $x^\star$: a nearest instance $x'$ to $x^\star$ for which $f(x')\ne f(x^\star)$. Here $S(f)$ is the sensitivity of $f$, a discrete analogue of the Lipschitz constant, and $\Delta_f(x^\star)$ is the distance from $x^\star$ to its nearest counterfactuals. The previous best known query complexity was $d^{\,O(\Delta_f(x^\star))}$, achievable by brute-force local search. We further prove a lower bound of $S(f)^{\Omega(\Delta_f(x^\star))} + \Omega(\log d)$ on the query complexity of any algorithm, thereby showing that the guarantees of our algorithm are essentially optimal.