Abstract:Counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning underpin numerous techniques for auditing and understanding artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The traditional paradigm for counterfactual reasoning in this literature is the interventional counterfactual, where hypothetical interventions are imagined and simulated. For this reason, the starting point for causal reasoning about legal protections and demographic data in AI is an imagined intervention on a legally-protected characteristic, such as ethnicity, race, gender, disability, age, etc. We ask, for example, what would have happened had your race been different? An inherent limitation of this paradigm is that some demographic interventions -- like interventions on race -- may not translate into the formalisms of interventional counterfactuals. In this work, we explore a new paradigm based instead on the backtracking counterfactual, where rather than imagine hypothetical interventions on legally-protected characteristics, we imagine alternate initial conditions while holding these characteristics fixed. We ask instead, what would explain a counterfactual outcome for you as you actually are or could be? This alternate framework allows us to address many of the same social concerns, but to do so while asking fundamentally different questions that do not rely on demographic interventions.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problems that this paper attempts to solve are the limitations of existing counterfactual reasoning methods in fairness and recourse, especially the limitations of traditional interventional counterfactuals when making hypothetical interventions on legally protected characteristics (such as race, gender, etc.). These problems include: 1. **Definition of complex social categories**: In practical applications, such as analyzing US census data, some complex social categories (such as race, socioeconomic status, etc.) are difficult to be defined precisely and modularly, resulting in impractical hypothetical interventions for these categories. 2. **Ambiguous practical meaning of hypothetical interventions**: For some protected characteristics (such as race), hypothetical interventions may have no clear practical meaning or cannot be reasonably explained. 3. **Lack of flexibility**: Traditional methods rely on hypothetical interventions on protected characteristics, which limits their flexibility and scope of application. To solve these problems, the paper proposes a new counterfactual reasoning paradigm based on backtracking counterfactuals. This new paradigm explains counterfactual results by imagining different initial conditions instead of making hypothetical interventions, thus avoiding the above - mentioned problems. Specifically, the paper explores the following questions: - **How to explain the counterfactual results that occur to an individual in his or her actual or possible states?** - **How to achieve this by changing the initial conditions rather than intervening in protected characteristics?** ### Advantages of the new paradigm 1. **No need for hypothetical interventions**: The new paradigm does not require hypothetical interventions on protected characteristics, thus avoiding the complexity and inoperability related to these characteristics. 2. **Wider applicability**: The new paradigm can be applied to more diverse scenarios and is more flexible especially when dealing with complex social categories. 3. **More natural explanation**: Explaining counterfactual results by changing the initial conditions makes the reasoning process more intuitive and easier to understand. ### Specific contributions of the paper - **Defining new concepts of counterfactual opportunity and effort**: New technical concepts of counterfactual opportunity and counterfactual effort required are introduced, and several new counterfactual discrimination criteria are proposed. - **Developing an algorithm to implement the new paradigm**: A simple algorithm for sampling backtracking counterfactuals is developed, and the proposed criteria are implemented on real and simulated data. - **Theoretical basis**: It lays a theoretical basis for future research, especially in algorithmic fairness and recourse, and provides a new counterfactual analysis method. Through these contributions, the paper aims to provide a more flexible and effective counterfactual reasoning framework for the fields of algorithmic fairness and recourse.

A New Paradigm for Counterfactual Reasoning in Fairness and Recourse

Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness

The Use and Misuse of Counterfactuals in Ethical Machine Learning

Counterfactual Fair Opportunity: Measuring Decision Model Fairness with Counterfactual Reasoning

Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Parity

Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness

How Counterfactual Fairness Modelling in Algorithms Can Promote Ethical Decision-Making

Counterfactual Fairness by Combining Factual and Counterfactual Predictions

Auditing fairness under unawareness through counterfactual reasoning

PreCoF: counterfactual explanations for fairness

How people reason with counterfactual and causal explanations for Artificial Intelligence decisions in familiar and unfamiliar domains

Longitudinal Counterfactuals: Constraints and Opportunities

Counterfactual Reasoning for Fair Clinical Risk Prediction

Causal Fairness for Outcome Control

Causal Interventions for Fairness

What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds

Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data

A Genealogical Approach to Algorithmic Bias

Fairness in Algorithmic Recourse Through the Lens of Substantive Equality of Opportunity

Fairness Deconstructed: A Sociotechnical View of 'Fair' Algorithms in Criminal Justice

Toward A Logical Theory Of Fairness and Bias