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.

To Give or Not to Give? The Impacts of Strategically Withheld Recourse Yatong Chen Andrew Estornell MPI for Intelligent Systems, T ubingen AI Center, T ubingen, Germany Bytedance Research Yevgeniy Vorobeychik Yang Liu Washington University in Saint Louis University of California, Santa Cruz Abstract Individuals often aim to reverse undesired outcomes in interactions with automated systems, like loan denials, by either implementing system-recommended actions (recourse), or manipulating their features. While providing recourse benefits users and enhances system utility, it also provides information about the decision process that can be used for more effective strategic manipulation, especially when the individuals collectively share such information with each other. We show that this tension leads rational utility-maximizing systems to frequently withhold recourse, resulting in decreased population utility, particularly impacting sensitive groups. To mitigate these effects, we explore ...

Algorithmic Recourse is a way for users to modify their attributes to align with a model's expectations, thereby improving their outcomes after receiving unfavorable decisions. In real-world scenarios, users often need to strategically adjust their attributes to compete for limited resources. However, such strategic behavior induces users to "game" algorithms, causing model collapse due to distribution shifts. These shifts arise from user competition, resource constraints, and adaptive user responses. While prior research on Algorithmic Recourse has explored its effects on both systems and users, the impact of resource constraints and competition over time remains underexplored. In this work, we develop a general framework to model user strategic behaviors and their interactions with decision-making systems under resource constraints and competitive dynamics. Through theoretical analysis and empirical evaluation, we identify three key phenomena that arise consistently in both synthetic and real-world datasets: escalating decision boundaries, non-robust model predictions, and inequitable recourse actions. Finally, we discuss the broader social implications of these findings and present two algorithmic strategies aimed at mitigating these challenges.

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.

This paper proposes a new algorithm for learning accurate tree-based models while ensuring the existence of recourse actions. Algorithmic Recourse (AR) aims to provide a recourse action for altering the undesired prediction result given by a model. Typical AR methods provide a reasonable action by solving an optimization task of minimizing the required effort among executable actions. In practice, however, such actions do not always exist for models optimized only for predictive performance. To alleviate this issue, we formulate the task of learning an accurate classification tree under the constraint of ensuring the existence of reasonable actions for as many instances as possible. Then, we propose an efficient top-down greedy algorithm by leveraging the adversarial training techniques. We also show that our proposed algorithm can be applied to the random forest, which is known as a popular framework for learning tree ensembles. Experimental results demonstrated that our method successfully provided reasonable actions to more instances than the baselines without significantly degrading accuracy and computational efficiency.

A recourse action aims to explain a particular algorithmic decision by showing one specific way in which the instance could be modified to receive an alternate outcome. Existing recourse generation methods often assume that the machine learning model does not change over time. However, this assumption does not always hold in practice because of data distribution shifts, and in this case, the recourse action may become invalid. To redress this shortcoming, we propose the Distributionally Robust Recourse Action (DiRRAc) framework, which generates a recourse action that has a high probability of being valid under a mixture of model shifts. We formulate the robustified recourse setup as a min-max optimization problem, where the max problem is specified by Gelbrich distance over an ambiguity set around the distribution of model parameters. Then we suggest a projected gradient descent algorithm to find a robust recourse according to the min-max objective. We show that our DiRRAc framework can be extended to hedge against the misspecification of the mixture weights. Numerical experiments with both synthetic and three real-world datasets demonstrate the benefits of our proposed framework over state-of-the-art recourse methods.

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.

While many recent works have studied the problem of algorithmic fairness from the perspective of predictions, here we investigate the fairness of recourse actions recommended to individuals to recover from an unfavourable classification. To this end, we propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level which---unlike prior work on equalising the average distance from the decision boundary across protected groups---are based on a causal framework that explicitly models relationships between input features, thereby allowing to capture downstream effects of recourse actions performed in the physical world. We explore how our criteria relate to others, such as counterfactual fairness, and show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We then investigate how to enforce fair recourse in the training of the classifier. Finally, we discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions and structural changes to the system, as opposed to constraints on the classifier.