Machine learning models now influence decisions that directly affect people's lives, making it important to understand not only their predictions, but also how individuals could act to obtain better results. Algorithmic recourse provides actionable input modifications to achieve more favorable outcomes, typically relying on counterfactual explanations to suggest such changes. However, when the Rashomon set - the set of near-optimal models - is large, standard counterfactual explanations can become unreliable, as a recourse action valid for one model may fail under another. We introduce ElliCE, a novel framework for robust algorithmic recourse that optimizes counterfactuals over an ellipsoidal approximation of the Rashomon set. The resulting explanations are provably valid over this ellipsoid, with theoretical guarantees on uniqueness, stability, and alignment with key feature directions. Empirically, ElliCE generates counterfactuals that are not only more robust but also more flexible, adapting to user-specified feature constraints while being substantially faster than existing baselines. This provides a principled and practical solution for reliable recourse under model uncertainty, ensuring stable recommendations for users even as models evolve.

Counterfactual explanations provide individuals with cost-optimal recommendations to achieve their desired outcomes. However, when a significant number of individuals seek similar state modifications, this individual-centric approach can inadvertently create competition and introduce unforeseen costs. Additionally, disregarding the underlying data distribution may lead to recommendations that individuals perceive as unusual or impractical. To address these challenges, we propose a novel framework that extends standard counterfactual explanations by incorporating a population dynamics model. This framework penalizes deviations from equilibrium after individuals follow the recommendations, effectively mitigating externalities caused by correlated changes across the population. By balancing individual modification costs with their impact on others, our method ensures more equitable and efficient outcomes. We show how this approach reframes the counterfactual explanation problem from an individual-centric task to a collective optimization problem. Augmenting our theoretical insights, we design and implement scalable algorithms for computing collective counterfactuals, showcasing their effectiveness and advantages over existing recourse methods, particularly in aligning with collective objectives.

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.