From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08030v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 09:30:25 GMT
• Title: From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse
• Abstract summary: We formalize personalization as individual actionability, characterized along two dimensions: hard constraints that specify which features are individually actionable, and soft, individualized constraints that capture preferences over action values and costs.<n>Our results highlight important trade-offs: individual actionability constraints, particularly hard ones, can substantially degrade the plausibility and validity of recourse recommendations.
• Score: 7.406039110392314
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic recourse aims to provide actionable recommendations that enable individuals to change unfavorable model outcomes, and prior work has extensively studied properties such as efficiency, robustness, and fairness. However, the role of personalization in recourse remains largely implicit and underexplored. While existing approaches incorporate elements of personalization through user interactions, they typically lack an explicit definition of personalization and do not systematically analyze its downstream effects on other recourse desiderata. In this paper, we formalize personalization as individual actionability, characterized along two dimensions: hard constraints that specify which features are individually actionable, and soft, individualized constraints that capture preferences over action values and costs. We operationalize these dimensions within the causal algorithmic recourse framework, adopting a pre-hoc user-prompting approach in which individuals express preferences via rankings or scores prior to the generation of any recourse recommendation. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we investigate how personalization interacts with key recourse desiderata, including validity, cost, and plausibility. Our results highlight important trade-offs: individual actionability constraints, particularly hard ones, can substantially degrade the plausibility and validity of recourse recommendations across amortized and non-amortized approaches. Notably, we also find that incorporating individual actionability can reveal disparities in the cost and plausibility of recourse actions across socio-demographic groups. These findings underscore the need for principled definitions, careful operationalization, and rigorous evaluation of personalization in algorithmic recourse.

Related papers

• Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation [59.539429430690156]
  Existing evaluation methods fail to capture user-specific preferences embedded in long-term interaction histories.<n>We propose Personalized Evaluation as Learning, a paradigm that formulates personalized evaluation as a learning problem rather than a static judgment.<n>Experiments show that PARL consistently induces high-fidelity rubrics that reliably identify user-aligned responses and generalize across users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T17:00:55Z)
• Privacy, Prediction, and Allocation [1.0885910878567455]
  We study aid allocation systems that satisfy differential privacy and targeting levels.<n>We provide clean, interpretable bounds characterizing the tradeoffs between privacy, efficiency, and targeting precision in allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T00:31:58Z)
• Personalized Reasoning: Just-In-Time Personalization and Why LLMs Fail At It [81.50711040539566]
  Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges.<n>We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks.<n>Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:55:28Z)
• Personalized Language Models via Privacy-Preserving Evolutionary Model Merging [53.97323896430374]
  Personalization in language models aims to tailor model behavior to individual users or user groups.<n>We propose Privacy-Preserving Model Merging via Evolutionary Algorithms (PriME)<n>PriME employs gradient-free methods to directly optimize utility while reducing privacy risks.<n>Experiments on the LaMP benchmark show that PriME consistently outperforms a range of baselines, achieving up to a 45% improvement in task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T09:46:07Z)
• When Personalization Meets Reality: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Personalized Preference Learning [39.22503425640312]
  Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) typically assumes homogeneous preferences across users, overlooking diverse human values and minority viewpoints.<n>We present a multi-faceted evaluation framework that measures not only performance but also fairness, unintended effects, and adaptability across varying levels of preference divergence.<n>These findings highlight the critical need for holistic evaluation approaches to advance the development of more effective and inclusive preference learning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T14:14:58Z)
• Quantifying User Coherence: A Unified Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation Analysis [69.37718774071793]
  This paper introduces novel information-theoretic measures for understanding recommender systems. We evaluate 7 recommendation algorithms across 9 datasets, revealing the relationships between our measures and standard performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T13:02:07Z)
• Personalized Pricing with Invalid Instrumental Variables: Identification, Estimation, and Policy Learning [5.372349090093469]
  This work studies offline personalized pricing under endogeneity using an instrumental variable approach. We propose a new policy learning method for Personalized pRicing using Invalid iNsTrumental variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T14:50:47Z)
• Mitigating Algorithmic Bias with Limited Annotations [65.060639928772]
  When sensitive attributes are not disclosed or available, it is needed to manually annotate a small part of the training data to mitigate bias. We propose Active Penalization Of Discrimination (APOD), an interactive framework to guide the limited annotations towards maximally eliminating the effect of algorithmic bias. APOD shows comparable performance to fully annotated bias mitigation, which demonstrates that APOD could benefit real-world applications when sensitive information is limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T16:31:19Z)
• Statistical Learning for Individualized Asset Allocation [22.053470518472356]
  We develop a discretization approach to model the effect from continuous actions. We show that our estimators using generalized folded concave penalties enjoy desirable theoretical properties. The results show that our individualized optimal strategy improves individual financial well-being and surpasses benchmark strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-20T04:40:03Z)
• Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricing [88.9134799076718]
  We study the interplay of fairness, welfare, and equity considerations in personalized pricing based on customer features. We show the potential benefits of personalized pricing in two settings: pricing subsidies for an elective vaccine, and the effects of personalized interest rates on downstream outcomes in microcredit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T01:01:56Z)

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.