A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04050v2
• Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:44:36 GMT
• Title: A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects
• Authors: Amir-Hossein Karimi, Gilles Barthe, Bernhard Sch\"olkopf, Isabel Valera
• Abstract summary: We focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse.
• Score: 24.615500469071183
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly used to inform decision-making in sensitive situations where decisions have consequential effects on individuals' lives. In these settings, in addition to requiring models to be accurate and robust, socially relevant values such as fairness, privacy, accountability, and explainability play an important role for the adoption and impact of said technologies. In this work, we focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We first perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse. Then, we provide an overview of the prospective research directions towards which the community may engage, challenging existing assumptions and making explicit connections to other ethical challenges such as security, privacy, and fairness.

Related papers

• Algorithmic Fairness: A Tolerance Perspective [31.882207568746168]
  This survey delves into the existing literature on algorithmic fairness, specifically highlighting its multifaceted social consequences. We introduce a novel taxonomy based on 'tolerance', a term we define as the degree to which variations in fairness outcomes are acceptable. Our systematic review covers diverse industries, revealing critical insights into the balance between algorithmic decision making and social equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T08:16:54Z)
• PresAIse, A Prescriptive AI Solution for Enterprises [6.523929486550928]
  This paper outlines an initiative from IBM Research, aiming to address some of these challenges by offering a suite of prescriptive AI solutions. The solution suite includes scalable causal inference methods, interpretable decision-making approaches, and the integration of large language models. A proof-of-concept, PresAIse, demonstrates the solutions' potential by enabling non-ML experts to interact with prescriptive AI models via a natural language interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T03:23:08Z)
• Optimising Human-AI Collaboration by Learning Convincing Explanations [62.81395661556852]
  We propose a method for a collaborative system that remains safe by having a human making decisions. Ardent enables efficient and effective decision-making by adapting to individual preferences for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:00:16Z)
• Bridging the gap: Towards an Expanded Toolkit for AI-driven Decision-Making in the Public Sector [6.693502127460251]
  AI-driven decision-making systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector, with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare, financial fraud detection, and public health. These systems face the challenge of aligning machine learning (ML) models with the complex realities of public sector decision-making. We examine five key challenges where misalignment can occur, including distribution shifts, label bias, the influence of past decision-making on the data side, as well as competing objectives and human-in-the-loop on the model output side.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-29T17:44:48Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunities [24.471814126358556]
  We compare and discuss work across two major subsets of this literature: algorithmic fairness, and ethical decision making. We explore how each of these settings has articulated its normative concerns, the viability of different techniques for these different settings, and how ideas from each setting may have utility for the other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-13T20:33:14Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Differential Privacy and Fairness in Decisions and Learning Tasks: A Survey [50.90773979394264]
  It reviews the conditions under which privacy and fairness may have aligned or contrasting goals. It analyzes how and why DP may exacerbate bias and unfairness in decision problems and learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-16T16:50:23Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)

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.