Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behavior

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04333v3
• Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:55:44 GMT
• Title: Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behavior
• Authors: Stratis Tsirtsis and Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez
• Abstract summary: We find policies and counterfactual explanations that are optimal in terms of utility in a strategic setting. We show that, given a pre-defined policy, the problem of finding the optimal set of counterfactual explanations is NP-hard. We demonstrate that, by incorporating a matroid constraint into the problem formulation, we can increase the diversity of the optimal set of counterfactual explanations.
• Score: 16.980621769406923
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As data-driven predictive models are increasingly used to inform decisions, it has been argued that decision makers should provide explanations that help individuals understand what would have to change for these decisions to be beneficial ones. However, there has been little discussion on the possibility that individuals may use the above counterfactual explanations to invest effort strategically and maximize their chances of receiving a beneficial decision. In this paper, our goal is to find policies and counterfactual explanations that are optimal in terms of utility in such a strategic setting. We first show that, given a pre-defined policy, the problem of finding the optimal set of counterfactual explanations is NP-hard. Then, we show that the corresponding objective is nondecreasing and satisfies submodularity and this allows a standard greedy algorithm to enjoy approximation guarantees. In addition, we further show that the problem of jointly finding both the optimal policy and set of counterfactual explanations reduces to maximizing a non-monotone submodular function. As a result, we can use a recent randomized algorithm to solve the problem, which also offers approximation guarantees. Finally, we demonstrate that, by incorporating a matroid constraint into the problem formulation, we can increase the diversity of the optimal set of counterfactual explanations and incentivize individuals across the whole spectrum of the population to self improve. Experiments on synthetic and real lending and credit card data illustrate our theoretical findings and show that the counterfactual explanations and decision policies found by our algorithms achieve higher utility than several competitive baselines.

Related papers

• Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizer [52.09480867526656]
  We identify the source of misalignment as a form of distributional shift and uncertainty in learning human preferences. To mitigate overoptimization, we first propose a theoretical algorithm that chooses the best policy for an adversarially chosen reward model. Using the equivalence between reward models and the corresponding optimal policy, the algorithm features a simple objective that combines a preference optimization loss and a supervised learning loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T05:38:50Z)
• Online POMDP Planning with Anytime Deterministic Guarantees [11.157761902108692]
  Planning under uncertainty can be mathematically formalized using partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) Finding an optimal plan for POMDPs can be computationally expensive and is feasible only for small tasks. We derive a deterministic relationship between a simplified solution that is easier to obtain and the theoretically optimal one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T04:40:38Z)
• Optimization's Neglected Normative Commitments [3.3388234549922027]
  A paradigm used to approach potentially high-stakes decisions, optimization relies on abstracting the real world to a set of decision(s), objective(s) and constraint(s) This paper describes the normative choices and assumptions that are necessarily part of using optimization. It then identifies six emergent problems that may be neglected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-27T12:43:15Z)
• Explainable Data-Driven Optimization: From Context to Decision and Back Again [76.84947521482631]
  Data-driven optimization uses contextual information and machine learning algorithms to find solutions to decision problems with uncertain parameters. We introduce a counterfactual explanation methodology tailored to explain solutions to data-driven problems. We demonstrate our approach by explaining key problems in operations management such as inventory management and routing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T15:25:16Z)
• Policy learning "without" overlap: Pessimism and generalized empirical Bernstein's inequality [94.89246810243053]
  This paper studies offline policy learning, which aims at utilizing observations collected a priori to learn an optimal individualized decision rule. Existing policy learning methods rely on a uniform overlap assumption, i.e., the propensities of exploring all actions for all individual characteristics must be lower bounded. We propose Pessimistic Policy Learning (PPL), a new algorithm that optimize lower confidence bounds (LCBs) instead of point estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T22:43:08Z)
• From Explanation to Recommendation: Ethical Standards for Algorithmic Recourse [0.0]
  We argue that recourse should be viewed as a recommendation problem, not an explanation problem. We illustrate by considering the case of diversity constraints on algorithmic recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T20:09:42Z)
• Off-Policy Evaluation with Policy-Dependent Optimization Response [90.28758112893054]
  We develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with a textitpolicy-dependent linear optimization response. We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method. We provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T20:25:37Z)
• Bayesian Persuasion for Algorithmic Recourse [28.586165301962485]
  In some situations, the underlying predictive model is deliberately kept secret to avoid gaming. This 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 sends a signal, e.g., an action recommendation, to a decision subject to incentivize them to take desirable actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-12T17:18:54Z)
• Understanding the Effect of Stochasticity in Policy Optimization [86.7574122154668]
  We show that the preferability of optimization methods depends critically on whether exact gradients are used. Second, to explain these findings we introduce the concept of committal rate for policy optimization. Third, we show that in the absence of external oracle information, there is an inherent trade-off between exploiting geometry to accelerate convergence versus achieving optimality almost surely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-29T06:35:44Z)
• Modularity in Reinforcement Learning via Algorithmic Independence in Credit Assignment [79.5678820246642]
  We show that certain action-value methods are more sample efficient than policy-gradient methods on transfer problems that require only sparse changes to a sequence of previously optimal decisions. We generalize the recently proposed societal decision-making framework as a more granular formalism than the Markov decision process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-28T21:29:13Z)
• Beyond Individualized Recourse: Interpretable and Interactive Summaries of Actionable Recourses [14.626432428431594]
  We propose a novel model framework called Actionable Recourse agnostic (AReS) to construct global counterfactual explanations. We formulate a novel objective which simultaneously optimize for correctness of the recourses and interpretability of the explanations. Our framework can provide decision makers with a comprehensive overview of recourses corresponding to any black box model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-15T15:14:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.