arXiv:2606. 18832v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems.
Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision.
ReFIne is a training framework that augments large reasoning models with three trustworthiness properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. It combines supervised fine‑tuning with GRPO to produce structured, tag‑based reasoning traces, explicitly disclose decisive information, and provide self‑assessments of soundness and confidence. Applied to Qwen3 models, ReFIne improves interpretability by 44.0 %, faithfulness by 18.8 %, and reliability by 42.4 % on mathematical benchmarks.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
arXiv:2608. 04677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic recourse seeks to help individuals reverse unfavorable automated decisions by recommending actionable changes that achieve a desired outcome.
arXiv:2606. 08696v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model.
The paper introduces Explanation-Driven Feature Acquisition (EDFA), a method that jointly optimizes algorithmic recourse and feature acquisition by selecting features based on explanatory value per unit cost. Using Markov Blanket theory, EDFA unifies various explanation types and provides distribution‑free validity guarantees for recourse derived from partial information. Experiments on seven datasets show that EDFA requires fewer features than existing active feature acquisition baselines while maintaining accuracy and producing more actionable recourse.
arXiv:2606. 13884v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern decision systems increasingly rely on learned components whose outputs may be confident yet wrong, exposing downstream actions to costly errors.
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv:2607. 22045v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome.
arXiv:2607. 02206v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictions are increasingly used to guide high-stakes decisions, from treatment selection to policy making.
arXiv:2606. 10347v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly used in critical domains, where both predictions and their associated confidence levels influence important decisions.