Feature Responsiveness Scores: Model-Agnostic Explanations for Recourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22598v1
• Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:37:49 GMT
• Title: Feature Responsiveness Scores: Model-Agnostic Explanations for Recourse
• Authors: Seung Hyun Cheon, Anneke Wernerfelt, Sorelle A. Friedler, Berk Ustun,
• Abstract summary: Consumer protection rules mandate that we provide a list of "principal reasons" to consumers who receive adverse decisions. In practice, lenders and employers identify principal reasons by returning the top-scoring features from a feature attribution method. We show that standard attribution methods can mislead individuals by highlighting reasons without recourse. We propose to address these issues by scoring features on the basis of responsiveness.
• Score: 7.730963708373791
• License:
• Abstract: Machine learning models are often used to automate or support decisions in applications such as lending and hiring. In such settings, consumer protection rules mandate that we provide a list of "principal reasons" to consumers who receive adverse decisions. In practice, lenders and employers identify principal reasons by returning the top-scoring features from a feature attribution method. In this work, we study how such practices align with one of the underlying goals of consumer protection - recourse - i.e., educating individuals on how they can attain a desired outcome. We show that standard attribution methods can mislead individuals by highlighting reasons without recourse - i.e., by presenting consumers with features that cannot be changed to achieve recourse. We propose to address these issues by scoring features on the basis of responsiveness - i.e., the probability that an individual can attain a desired outcome by changing a specific feature. We develop efficient methods to compute responsiveness scores for any model and any dataset under complex actionability constraints. We present an extensive empirical study on the responsiveness of explanations in lending and demonstrate how responsiveness scores can be used to construct feature-highlighting explanations that lead to recourse and mitigate harm by flagging instances with fixed predictions.

Related papers

• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Introducing User Feedback-based Counterfactual Explanations (UFCE) [49.1574468325115]
  Counterfactual explanations (CEs) have emerged as a viable solution for generating comprehensible explanations in XAI. UFCE allows for the inclusion of user constraints to determine the smallest modifications in the subset of actionable features. UFCE outperforms two well-known CE methods in terms of textitproximity, textitsparsity, and textitfeasibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T20:09:44Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Detection and Evaluation of bias-inducing Features in Machine learning [14.045499740240823]
  In the context of machine learning (ML), one can use cause-to-effect analysis to understand the reason for the biased behavior of the system. We propose an approach for systematically identifying all bias-inducing features of a model to help support the decision-making of domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T15:01:16Z)
• Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets [16.705988489763868]
  We introduce a procedure called recourse verification to test if a model assigns fixed predictions to its decision subjects. We conduct a comprehensive empirical study on the infeasibility of recourse on datasets from consumer finance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T14:24:04Z)
• Decomposing Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decision Making [11.17545155325116]
  We develop a novel and practical recourse framework that bridges the gap between the IMF and the strong causal assumptions. texttt generates recourses by disentangling the latent representation of co-varying features. Our experiments on real-world data corroborate our theoretically motivated recourse model and highlight our framework's ability to provide reliable, low-cost recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T21:26:55Z)
• 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)
• Fairness-aware Summarization for Justified Decision-Making [16.47665757950391]
  We focus on the problem of (un)fairness in the justification of the text-based neural models. We propose a fairness-aware summarization mechanism to detect and counteract the bias in such models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-13T17:04:10Z)
• 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)
• Learning "What-if" Explanations for Sequential Decision-Making [92.8311073739295]
  Building interpretable parameterizations of real-world decision-making on the basis of demonstrated behavior is essential. We propose learning explanations of expert decisions by modeling their reward function in terms of preferences with respect to "what if" outcomes. We highlight the effectiveness of our batch, counterfactual inverse reinforcement learning approach in recovering accurate and interpretable descriptions of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-02T14:24:17Z)

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.