Algorithmic Recourse (AR) aims to provide users with actionable steps to overturn unfavourable decisions made by machine learning predictors. However, these actions often take time to implement (e.g., getting a degree can take years), and their effects may vary as the world evolves. Thus, it is natural to ask for recourse that remains valid in a dynamic environment. In this paper, we study the robustness of algorithmic recourse over time by casting the problem through the lens of causality. We demonstrate theoretically and empirically that (even robust) causal AR methods can fail over time except in the - unlikely - case that the world is stationary. Even more critically, unless the world is fully deterministic, counterfactual AR cannot be solved optimally. To account for this, we propose a simple yet effective algorithm for temporal AR that explicitly accounts for time. Our simulations on synthetic and realistic datasets show how considering time produces more resilient solutions to potential trends in the data distribution.

In recent years, there has been increasing excitement about the potential of decision support systems based on machine learning to help human experts make more accurate predictions in a variety of application domains, including medicine, education and science [1-3]. In this context, the ultimate goal is human-AI complementarity--the predictions made by the human expert who uses a decision support system are more accurate than the predictions made by the expert on their own and by the classifier used by the decision support system [4-8]. The conventional wisdom is that to achieve human-AI complementarity, decision support systems should help humans understand when and how to use their predictions to update their own. As a result, a flurry of empirical studies has analyzed how factors such as confidence, explanations, or calibration influence when and how humans use the predictions provided by a decision support system [9-12]. Unfortunately, these studies have been so far inconclusive and it is yet unclear how to design decision support systems that achieve human-AI complementarity [13-17]. In this context, Straitouri et al. [18, 19] have recently argued, both theoretically and empirically, that an alternative type of decision support systems may achieve human-AI complementarity, by design. Rather than providing a single label prediction and letting a human expert decide when and how to use the predicted label to update their own prediction, these systems provide a set of label predictions, namely a prediction set, and ask the expert to predict a label value from the set.

Algorithmic Recourse aims to provide actionable explanations, or recourse plans, to overturn potentially unfavourable decisions taken by automated machine learning models. In this paper, we propose an interaction paradigm based on a guided interaction pattern aimed at both eliciting the users' preferences and heading them toward effective recourse interventions. In a fictional task of money lending, we compare this approach with an exploratory interaction pattern based on a combination of alternative plans and the possibility of freely changing the configurations by the users themselves. Our results suggest that users may recognize that the guided interaction paradigm improves efficiency. However, they also feel less freedom to experiment with "what-if" scenarios. Nevertheless, the time spent on the purely exploratory interface tends to be perceived as a lack of efficiency, which reduces attractiveness, perspicuity, and dependability. Conversely, for the guided interface, more time on the interface seems to increase its attractiveness, perspicuity, and dependability while not impacting the perceived efficiency. That might suggest that this type of interfaces should combine these two approaches by trying to support exploratory behavior while gently pushing toward a guided effective solution.

Algorithmic Recourse (AR) is the problem of computing a sequence of actions that -- once performed by a user -- overturns an undesirable machine decision. It is paramount that the sequence of actions does not require too much effort for users to implement. Yet, most approaches to AR assume that actions cost the same for all users, and thus may recommend unfairly expensive recourse plans to certain users. Prompted by this observation, we introduce PEAR, the first human-in-the-loop approach capable of providing personalized algorithmic recourse tailored to the needs of any end-user. PEAR builds on insights from Bayesian Preference Elicitation to iteratively refine an estimate of the costs of actions by asking choice set queries to the target user. The queries themselves are computed by maximizing the Expected Utility of Selection, a principled measure of information gain accounting for uncertainty on both the cost estimate and the user's responses. PEAR integrates elicitation into a Reinforcement Learning agent coupled with Monte Carlo Tree Search to quickly identify promising recourse plans. Our empirical evaluation on real-world datasets highlights how PEAR produces high-quality personalized recourse in only a handful of iterations.

Being able to provide counterfactual interventions - sequences of actions we would have had to take for a desirable outcome to happen - is essential to explain how to change an unfavourable decision by a black-box machine learning model (e.g., being denied a loan request). Existing solutions have mainly focused on generating feasible interventions without providing explanations on their rationale. Moreover, they need to solve a separate optimization problem for each user. In this paper, we take a different approach and learn a program that outputs a sequence of explainable counterfactual actions given a user description and a causal graph. We leverage program synthesis techniques, reinforcement learning coupled with Monte Carlo Tree Search for efficient exploration, and rule learning to extract explanations for each recommended action. An experimental evaluation on synthetic and real-world datasets shows how our approach generates effective interventions by making orders of magnitude fewer queries to the black-box classifier with respect to existing solutions, with the additional benefit of complementing them with interpretable explanations.