Probabilistically Robust Recourse: Navigating the Trade-offs between Costs and Robustness in Algorithmic Recourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.06768v4
• Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:46:16 GMT
• Title: Probabilistically Robust Recourse: Navigating the Trade-offs between Costs and Robustness in Algorithmic Recourse
• Authors: Martin Pawelczyk and Teresa Datta and Johannes van-den-Heuvel and Gjergji Kasneci and Himabindu Lakkaraju
• Abstract summary: We propose an objective function which simultaneously minimizes the gap between the achieved (resulting) and desired recourse invalidation rates. We develop novel theoretical results to characterize the recourse invalidation rates corresponding to any given instance. Experimental evaluation with multiple real world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework.
• Score: 34.39887495671287
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As machine learning models are increasingly being employed to make consequential decisions in real-world settings, it becomes critical to ensure that individuals who are adversely impacted (e.g., loan denied) by the predictions of these models are provided with a means for recourse. While several approaches have been proposed to construct recourses for affected individuals, the recourses output by these methods either achieve low costs (i.e., ease-of-implementation) or robustness to small perturbations (i.e., noisy implementations of recourses), but not both due to the inherent trade-offs between the recourse costs and robustness. Furthermore, prior approaches do not provide end users with any agency over navigating the aforementioned trade-offs. In this work, we address the above challenges by proposing the first algorithmic framework which enables users to effectively manage the recourse cost vs. robustness trade-offs. More specifically, our framework Probabilistically ROBust rEcourse (\texttt{PROBE}) lets users choose the probability with which a recourse could get invalidated (recourse invalidation rate) if small changes are made to the recourse i.e., the recourse is implemented somewhat noisily. To this end, we propose a novel objective function which simultaneously minimizes the gap between the achieved (resulting) and desired recourse invalidation rates, minimizes recourse costs, and also ensures that the resulting recourse achieves a positive model prediction. We develop novel theoretical results to characterize the recourse invalidation rates corresponding to any given instance w.r.t. different classes of underlying models (e.g., linear models, tree based models etc.), and leverage these results to efficiently optimize the proposed objective. Experimental evaluation with multiple real world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework.

Related papers

• Perfect Counterfactuals in Imperfect Worlds: Modelling Noisy Implementation of Actions in Sequential Algorithmic Recourse [26.57812122315108]
  Algorithmic recourse provides actions to individuals who have been adversely affected by automated decision-making. Knowing the recourse does not guarantee that users would implement it perfectly, either due to environmental variability or personal choices. We propose the RObust SEquential (ROSE) recourse generator to output a sequence of steps that will lead to the desired outcome even under imperfect implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T07:47:42Z)
• On the Trade-offs between Adversarial Robustness and Actionable Explanations [32.05150063480917]
  We make one of the first attempts at studying the impact of adversarially robust models on actionable explanations. We derive theoretical bounds on the differences between the cost and the validity of recourses generated by state-of-the-art algorithms. Our results show that adversarially robust models significantly increase the cost and reduce the validity of the resulting recourses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T13:59:50Z)
• Leaving the Nest: Going Beyond Local Loss Functions for Predict-Then-Optimize [57.22851616806617]
  We show that our method achieves state-of-the-art results in four domains from the literature. Our approach outperforms the best existing method by nearly 200% when the localness assumption is broken.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T11:17:45Z)
• When Demonstrations Meet Generative World Models: A Maximum Likelihood Framework for Offline Inverse Reinforcement Learning [62.00672284480755]
  This paper aims to recover the structure of rewards and environment dynamics that underlie observed actions in a fixed, finite set of demonstrations from an expert agent. Accurate models of expertise in executing a task has applications in safety-sensitive applications such as clinical decision making and autonomous driving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T04:14:20Z)
• Stochastic Methods for AUC Optimization subject to AUC-based Fairness Constraints [51.12047280149546]
  A direct approach for obtaining a fair predictive model is to train the model through optimizing its prediction performance subject to fairness constraints. We formulate the training problem of a fairness-aware machine learning model as an AUC optimization problem subject to a class of AUC-based fairness constraints. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on real-world data under different fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-23T22:29:08Z)
• Error-based Knockoffs Inference for Controlled Feature Selection [49.99321384855201]
  We propose an error-based knockoff inference method by integrating the knockoff features, the error-based feature importance statistics, and the stepdown procedure together. The proposed inference procedure does not require specifying a regression model and can handle feature selection with theoretical guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-09T01:55:59Z)
• Low-Cost Algorithmic Recourse for Users With Uncertain Cost Functions [74.00030431081751]
  We formalize the notion of user-specific cost functions and introduce a new method for identifying actionable recourses for users. Our method satisfies up to 25.89 percentage points more users compared to strong baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T19:49:35Z)
• Modeling the Second Player in Distributionally Robust Optimization [90.25995710696425]
  We argue for the use of neural generative models to characterize the worst-case distribution. This approach poses a number of implementation and optimization challenges. We find that the proposed approach yields models that are more robust than comparable baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-18T14:26:26Z)
• Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse [11.887537452826624]
  We propose a novel framework, RObust Algorithmic Recourse (ROAR), that leverages adversarial training for finding recourses that are robust to model shifts. We also carry out detailed theoretical analysis which underscores the importance of constructing recourses that are robust to model shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-26T17:38:52Z)
• Present-Biased Optimization [8.775878711928591]
  The paper extends the framework proposed by Akerlof (1991) for studying various aspects of human behavior related to time-inconsistent planning. We show that the ratio between the cost of the solutions computed by present-biased agents and the cost of the optimal solutions may differ significantly depending on the problem constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-29T12:40:59Z)
• 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.