Counterfactual and Example-Based Explanations
Feature attributions tell you which inputs mattered, but humans often understand decisions better through a different lens: "what would have to change for a different outcome?" and "what similar cases did the model see?" Counterfactual and example-based explanations answer exactly those questions — and they're often more actionable and more intuitive than attribution scores. This post covers the explanation styles that speak the way people actually reason.
Humans understand decisions by contrast ('what would change the outcome?') and example ('what similar cases?'). Counterfactual explanations give actionable recourse ('approved if income were $5k higher'); example-based explanations build trust by analogy. No single explanation is right — match the style to the question and audience.