As machine learning models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as legal and financial decision-making, there has been growing interest in post-hoc methods for generating counterfactual explanations. Such explanations provide individuals adversely impacted by predicted outcomes (e.g., an applicant denied a loan) with recourse---i.e., a description of how they can change their features to obtain a positive outcome. We propose a novel algorithm that leverages adversarial training and PAC confidence sets to learn models that theoretically guarantee recourse to affected individuals with high probability without sacrificing accuracy. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach via extensive experiments on real data.

As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision-making, there has been a lot of interest in developing algorithms which can provide recourses to affected individuals. While developing such tools is important, it is even more critical to analyze and interpret a predictive model, and vet it thoroughly to ensure that the recourses it offers are meaningful and non-discriminatory before it is deployed in the real world. To this end, we propose a novel model agnostic framework called Actionable Recourse Summaries (AReS) to construct global counterfactual explanations which provide an interpretable and accurate summary of recourses for the entire population. We formulate a novel objective which simultaneously optimizes for correctness of the recourses and interpretability of the explanations, while minimizing overall recourse costs across the entire population. More specifically, our objective enables us to learn, with optimality guarantees on recourse correctness, a small number of compact rule sets each of which capture recourses for well defined subpopulations within the data. We also demonstrate theoretically that several of the prior approaches proposed to generate recourses for individuals are special cases of our framework. Experimental evaluation with real world datasets and user studies demonstrate that our framework can provide decision makers with a comprehensive overview of recourses corresponding to any black box model, and consequently help detect undesirable model biases and discrimination.

As machine learning models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as legal and financial decision-making, there has been growing interest in post-hoc methods for generating counterfactual explanations. Such explanations provide individuals adversely impacted by predicted outcomes (e.g., an applicant denied a loan) with recourse---i.e., a description of how they can change their features to obtain a positive outcome. We propose a novel algorithm that leverages adversarial training and PAC confidence sets to learn models that theoretically guarantee recourse to affected individuals with high probability without sacrificing accuracy. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach via extensive experiments on real data.

As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision-making, there has been a lot of interest in developing algorithms which can provide recourses to affected individuals. While developing such tools is important, it is even more critical to analyze and interpret a predictive model, and vet it thoroughly to ensure that the recourses it offers are meaningful and non-discriminatory before it is deployed in the real world. To this end, we propose a novel model agnostic framework called Actionable Recourse Summaries (AReS) to construct global counterfactual explanations which provide an interpretable and accurate summary of recourses for the entire population. We formulate a novel objective which simultaneously optimizes for correctness of the recourses and interpretability of the explanations, while minimizing overall recourse costs across the entire population. More specifically, our objective enables us to learn, with optimality guarantees on recourse correctness, a small number of compact rule sets each of which capture recourses for well defined subpopulations within the data.

Mobile health apps provide a unique means of collecting data that can be used to deliver adaptive interventions.The predicted outcomes considerably influence the selection of such interventions. Recourse via counterfactuals provides tangible mechanisms to modify user predictions. By identifying plausible actions that increase the likelihood of a desired prediction, stakeholders are afforded agency over their predictions. Furthermore, recourse mechanisms enable counterfactual reasoning that can help provide insights into candidates for causal interventional features. We demonstrate the feasibility of GAN-generated recourse for mobile health applications on ensemble-survival-analysis-based prediction of medium-term engagement in the Safe Delivery App, a digital training tool for skilled birth attendants.

The problem of identifying algorithmic recourse for people affected by machine learning model decisions has received much attention recently. Some recent works model user-incurred cost, which is directly linked to user satisfaction. But they assume a single global cost function that is shared across all users. This is an unrealistic assumption when users have dissimilar preferences about their willingness to act upon a feature and different costs associated with changing that feature. In this work, we formalize the notion of user-specific cost functions and introduce a new method for identifying actionable recourses for users. By default, we assume that users' cost functions are hidden from the recourse method, though our framework allows users to partially or completely specify their preferences or cost function. We propose an objective function, Expected Minimum Cost (EMC), based on two key ideas: (1) when presenting a set of options to a user, it is vital that there is at least one low-cost solution the user could adopt; (2) when we do not know the user's true cost function, we can approximately optimize for user satisfaction by first sampling plausible cost functions, then finding a set that achieves a good cost for the user in expectation. We optimize EMC with a novel discrete optimization algorithm, Cost-Optimized Local Search (COLS), which is guaranteed to improve the recourse set quality over iterations. Experimental evaluation on popular real-world datasets with simulated user costs demonstrates that our method satisfies up to 25.89 percentage points more users compared to strong baseline methods. Using standard fairness metrics, we also show that our method can provide more fair solutions across demographic groups than comparable methods, and we verify that our method is robust to misspecification of the cost function distribution.

Counterfactual explanation methods interpret the outputs of a machine learning model in the form of "what-if scenarios" without compromising the fidelity-interpretability trade-off. They explain how to obtain a desired prediction from the model by recommending small changes to the input features, aka recourse. We believe an actionable recourse should be created based on sound counterfactual explanations originating from the distribution of the ground-truth data and linked to the domain knowledge. Moreover, it needs to preserve the coherency between changed/unchanged features while satisfying user/domain-specified constraints. This paper introduces CARE, a modular explanation framework that addresses the model- and user-level desiderata in a consecutive and structured manner. We tackle the existing requirements by proposing novel and efficient solutions that are formulated in a multi-objective optimization framework. The designed framework enables including arbitrary requirements and generating counterfactual explanations and actionable recourse by choice. As a model-agnostic approach, CARE generates multiple, diverse explanations for any black-box model in tabular classification and regression settings. Several experiments on standard data sets and black-box models demonstrate the effectiveness of our modular framework and its superior performance compared to the baselines.

Classification models are often used to make decisions that affect humans: whether to approve a loan application, extend a job offer, or provide insurance. In such applications, individuals should have the ability to change the decision of the model. When a person is denied a loan by a credit scoring model, for example, they should be able to change the input variables of the model in a way that will guarantee approval. Otherwise, this person will be denied the loan so long as the model is deployed, and -- more importantly -- will lack agency over a decision that affects their livelihood. In this paper, we propose to audit a linear classification model in terms of recourse, which we define as the ability of a person to change the decision of the model through actionable input variables (e.g., income vs. gender, age, or marital status). We present an integer programming toolkit to: (i) measure the feasibility and difficulty of recourse in a target population; and (ii) generate a list of actionable changes for an individual to obtain a desired outcome. We demonstrate how our tools can inform practitioners, policymakers, and consumers by auditing credit scoring models built using real-world datasets. Our results illustrate how recourse can be significantly impacted by common modeling practices, and motivate the need to guarantee recourse as a policy objective for regulation in algorithmic decision-making.