Counterfactuals in fuzzy relational models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given the pressing need for explainability in Machine Learning systems, the studies on counterfactual explanations have gained significant interest. This research delves into this timely problem cast in a unique context of relational systems described by fuzzy relational equations. We develop a comprehensive solution to the counterfactual problems encountered in this setting, which is a novel contribution to the field. An underlying optimization problem is formulated, and its gradient-based solution is constructed. We demonstrate that the non-uniqueness of the derived solution is conveniently formalized and quantified by admitting a result coming in the form of information granules of a higher type, namely type-2 or interval-valued fuzzy set. The construction of the solution in this format is realized by invoking the principle of justifiable granularity, another innovative aspect of our research. We also discuss ways of designing fuzzy relations and elaborate on methods of carrying out counterfactual explanations in rule-based models. Illustrative examples are included to present the performance of the method and interpret the obtained results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it