Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

The trustworthiness of AI decision-making systems is increasingly important. A key feature of such systems is the ability to provide recommendations for how an individual may reverse a negative decision, a problem known as algorithmic recourse. Existing approaches treat recourse outcomes as counterfactuals of a fixed unit, ignoring that real-world recourse involves repeated decisions on the same individual under possibly different latent conditions. We develop a causal framework that models recourse as a process over pre- and post-intervention outcomes, allowing for partial stability and resampling of latent variables. We introduce post-recourse stability conditions that enable reasoning about recourse from observational data alone, and develop a copula-based algorithm for inferring the effects of recourse under these conditions. For settings where paired observations of the same individual before and after intervention are available (called recourse data), we develop methods for inferring copula parameters and performing goodness-of-fit testing. When the copula model is rejected, we provide a distribution-free algorithm for learning recourse effects directly from recourse data. We demonstrate the value of the proposed methods on real and semi-synthetic datasets.

When subjected to automated decision-making, decision subjects may strategically modify their observable features in ways they believe will maximize their chances of receiving a favorable decision. In many practical situations, the underlying assessment rule is deliberately kept secret to avoid gaming and maintain competitive advantage. The resulting opacity forces the decision subjects to rely on incomplete information when making strategic feature modifications. We capture such settings as a game of Bayesian persuasion, in which the decision maker offers a form of recourse to the decision subject by providing them with an action recommendation (or signal) to incentivize them to modify their features in desirable ways. We show that when using persuasion, the decision maker and decision subject are never worse off in expectation, while the decision maker can be significantly better off. While the decision maker's problem of finding the optimal Bayesian incentive compatible (BIC) signaling policy takes the form of optimization over infinitely many variables, we show that this optimization can be cast as a linear program over finitely-many regions of the space of possible assessment rules. While this reformulation simplifies the problem dramatically, solving the linear program requires reasoning about exponentially-many variables, even in relatively simple cases. Motivated by this observation, we provide a polynomial-time approximation scheme that recovers a near-optimal signaling policy. Finally, our numerical simulations on semi-synthetic data empirically demonstrate the benefits of using persuasion in the algorithmic recourse setting.

Recent work has discussed the limitations of counterfactual explanations to recommend actions for algorithmic recourse, and argued for the need of taking causal relationships between features into consideration. Unfortunately, in practice, the true underlying structural causal model is generally unknown. In this work, we first show that it is impossible to guarantee recourse without access to the true structural equations. To address this limitation, we propose two probabilistic approaches to select optimal actions that achieve recourse with high probability given limited causal knowledge (e.g., only the causal graph). The first captures uncertainty over structural equations under additive Gaussian noise, and uses Bayesian model averaging to estimate the counterfactual distribution. The second removes any assumptions on the structural equations by instead computing the average effect of recourse actions on individuals similar to the person who seeks recourse, leading to a novel subpopulation-based interventional notion of recourse. We then derive a gradient-based procedure for selecting optimal recourse actions, and empirically show that the proposed approaches lead to more reliable recommendations under imperfect causal knowledge than non-probabilistic baselines.

Machine learning based predictions are increasingly used in sensitive decision-making applications that directly affect our lives. This has led to extensive research into ensuring the fairness of classifiers. Beyond just fair classification, emerging legislation now mandates that when a classifier delivers a negative decision, it must also offer actionable steps an individual can take to reverse that outcome. This concept is known as algorithmic recourse. Nevertheless, many researchers have expressed concerns about the fairness guarantees within the recourse process itself. In this work, we provide a holistic theoretical characterization of unfairness in algorithmic recourse, formally linking fairness guarantees in recourse and classification, and highlighting limitations of the standard equal cost paradigm. We then introduce a novel fairness framework based on social burden, along with a practical algorithm (MISOB), broadly applicable under real-world conditions. Empirical results on real-world datasets show that MISOB reduces the social burden across all groups without compromising overall classifier accuracy.

Importantly, our results also show that subpopulation-based recourse is the right approach to adopt when assumptions such as additive noise do not hold.

Algorithmic recourse seeks to provide individuals with actionable recommendations that increase their chances of receiving favorable outcomes from automated decision systems (e.g., loan approvals). While prior research has emphasized robustness to model updates, considerably less attention has been given to the temporal dynamics of recourse--particularly in competitive, resource-constrained settings where recommendations shape future applicant pools. In this work, we present a novel time-aware framework for algorithmic recourse, explicitly modeling how candidate populations adapt in response to recommendations. Additionally, we introduce a novel reinforcement learning (RL)-based recourse algorithm that captures the evolving dynamics of the environment to generate recommendations that are both feasible and valid. We design our recommendations to be durable, supporting validity over a predefined time horizon T. This durability allows individuals to confidently reapply after taking time to implement the suggested changes. Through extensive experiments in complex simulation environments, we show that our approach substantially outperforms existing baselines, offering a superior balance between feasibility and long-term validity. Together, these results underscore the importance of incorporating temporal and behavioral dynamics into the design of practical recourse systems.

Recourse provides individuals who received undesirable labels (e.g., denied a loan) from algorithmic decision-making systems with a minimum-cost improvement suggestion to achieve the desired outcome. However, in practice, models often get updated to reflect changes in the data distribution or environment, invalidating the recourse recommendations (i.e., following the recourse will not lead to the desirable outcome). The robust recourse literature addresses this issue by providing a framework for computing recourses whose validity is resilient to slight changes in the model. However, since the optimization problem of computing robust recourse is non-convex (even for linear models), most of the current approaches do not have any theoretical guarantee on the optimality of the recourse. Recent work by Kayastha et. al. provides the first provably optimal algorithm for robust recourse with respect to generalized linear models when the model changes are measured using the $L^{\infty}$ norm. However, using the $L^{\infty}$ norm can lead to recourse solutions with a high price. To address this shortcoming, we consider more constrained model changes defined by the $L^p$ norm, where $p\geq 1$ but $p\neq \infty$, and provide a new algorithm that provably computes the optimal robust recourse for generalized linear models. Empirically, for both linear and non-linear models, we demonstrate that our algorithm achieves a significantly lower price of recourse (up to several orders of magnitude) compared to prior work and also exhibits a better trade-off between the implementation cost of recourse and its validity. Our empirical analysis also illustrates that our approach provides more sparse recourses compared to prior work and remains resilient to post-processing approaches that guarantee feasibility.

Decision makers are increasingly relying on machine learning in sensitive situations. In such settings, algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable and minimally costly steps to reverse unfavorable AI-driven decisions. While existing research predominantly focuses on single-individual (i.e., seeker) and single-model (i.e., provider) scenarios, real-world applications often involve multiple interacting stakeholders. Optimizing outcomes for seekers under an individual welfare approach overlooks the inherently multi-agent nature of real-world systems, where individuals interact and compete for limited resources. To address this, we introduce a novel framework for multi-agent algorithmic recourse that accounts for multiple recourse seekers and recourse providers. We model this many-to-many interaction as a capacitated weighted bipartite matching problem, where matches are guided by both recourse cost and provider capacity. Edge weights, reflecting recourse costs, are optimized for social welfare while quantifying the welfare gap between individual welfare and this collectively feasible outcome. We propose a three-layer optimization framework: (1) basic capacitated matching, (2) optimal capacity redistribution to minimize the welfare gap, and (3) cost-aware optimization balancing welfare maximization with capacity adjustment costs. Experimental validation on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates that our framework enables the many-to-many algorithmic recourse to achieve near-optimal welfare with minimum modification in system settings. This work extends algorithmic recourse from individual recommendations to system-level design, providing a tractable path toward higher social welfare while maintaining individual actionability.

Algorithmic Recourse provides recommendations to individuals who are adversely impacted by automated model decisions, on how to alter their profiles to achieve a favorable outcome. Effective recourse methods must balance three conflicting goals: proximity to the original profile to minimize cost, plausibility for realistic recourse, and validity to ensure the desired outcome. We show that existing methods train for these objectives separately and then search for recourse through a joint optimization over the recourse goals during inference, leading to poor recourse recommendations. We introduce GenRe, a generative recourse model designed to train the three recourse objectives jointly. Training such generative models is non-trivial due to lack of direct recourse supervision. We propose efficient ways to synthesize such supervision and further show that GenRe's training leads to a consistent estimator. Unlike most prior methods, that employ non-robust gradient descent based search during inference, GenRe simply performs a forward sampling over the generative model to produce minimum cost recourse, leading to superior performance across multiple metrics. We also demonstrate GenRe provides the best trade-off between cost, plausibility and validity, compared to state-of-art baselines. Machine learning models are increasingly used in high-stakes decision-making areas such as in finance (Josyula et al., 2024), judiciary (Elyounes, 2019), healthcare (Burger, 2020), and hiring (Schumann et al., 2020), prompting the need for transparency and fairness in decision-making (Barocas et al., 2023).