Post-hoc explanations of machine learning models are crucial for people to understand and act on algorithmic predictions. An intriguing class of explanations is through counterfactuals, hypothetical examples that show people how to obtain a different prediction. We posit that effective counterfactual explanations should satisfy two properties: feasibility of the counterfactual actions given user context and constraints, and diversity among the counterfactuals presented. To this end, we propose a framework for generating and evaluating a diverse set of counterfactual explanations based on average distance and determinantal point processes. To evaluate the actionability of counterfactuals, we provide metrics that enable comparison of counterfactual-based methods to other local explanation methods. We further address necessary tradeoffs and point to causal implications in optimizing for counterfactuals. Our experiments on three real-world datasets show that our framework can generate a set of counterfactuals that are diverse and well approximate local decision boundaries.

Historically, social scientists have sought out explanations of human and social phenomena that provide interpretable causal mechanisms, while often ignoring their predictive accuracy. We argue that the increasingly computational nature of social science is beginning to reverse this traditional bias against prediction; however, it has also highlighted three important issues that require resolution. First, current practices for evaluating predictions must be better standardized. Second, theoretical limits to predictive accuracy in complex social systems must be better characterized, thereby setting expectations for what can be predicted or explained. Third, predictive accuracy and interpretability must be recognized as complements, not substitutes, when evaluating explanations. Resolving these three issues will lead to better, more replicable, and more useful social science.

No abstract

How predictable is success in complex social systems? In spite of a recent profusion of prediction studies that exploit online social and information network data, this question remains unanswered, in part because it has not been adequately specified. In this paper we attempt to clarify the question by presenting a simple stylized model of success that attributes prediction error to one of two generic sources: insufficiency of available data and/or models on the one hand; and inherent unpredictability of complex social systems on the other. We then use this model to motivate an illustrative empirical study of information cascade size prediction on Twitter. Despite an unprecedented volume of information about users, content, and past performance, our best performing models can explain less than half of the variance in cascade sizes. In turn, this result suggests that even with unlimited data predictive performance would be bounded well below deterministic accuracy. Finally, we explore this potential bound theoretically using simulations of a diffusion process on a random scale free network similar to Twitter. We show that although higher predictive power is possible in theory, such performance requires a homogeneous system and perfect ex-ante knowledge of it: even a small degree of uncertainty in estimating product quality or slight variation in quality across products leads to substantially more restrictive bounds on predictability. We conclude that realistic bounds on predictive accuracy are not dissimilar from those we have obtained empirically, and that such bounds for other complex social systems for which data is more difficult to obtain are likely even lower.

Recommendation systems are an increasingly prominent part of the web, accounting for up to a third of all traffic on several of the world's most popular sites. Nevertheless, little is known about how much activity such systems actually cause over and above activity that would have occurred via other means (e.g., search) if recommendations were absent. Although the ideal way to estimate the causal impact of recommendations is via randomized experiments, such experiments are costly and may inconvenience users. In this paper, therefore, we present a method for estimating causal effects from purely observational data. Specifically, we show that causal identification through an instrumental variable is possible when a product experiences an instantaneous shock in direct traffic and the products recommended next to it do not. We then apply our method to browsing logs containing anonymized activity for 2.1 million users on Amazon.com over a 9 month period and analyze over 4,000 unique products that experience such shocks. We find that although recommendation click-throughs do account for a large fraction of traffic among these products, at least 75% of this activity would likely occur in the absence of recommendations. We conclude with a discussion about the assumptions under which the method is appropriate and caveats around extrapolating results to other products, sites, or settings.