Algorithmic Recourse

Algorithmic recourse provides individuals who have received undesirable outcomes from machine learning models with suggestions for minimum-cost improvements to achieve the desired outcome. A central assumption when computing recourse is that the decision rule remains fixed throughout the recourse implementation phase. We challenge this assumption in settings where individuals compete for limited resources. In such settings, widespread recourse implementation can change the acceptance threshold even when the scoring model that is used to evaluate individuals remains the same. This change in acceptance threshold can, in turn, invalidate the original recourse recommendations (i.e., following the recourse may not lead to the desired outcome). To address this problem, we introduce a framework called recourse under competition that jointly optimizes for recommendation recipients and the recommended score target they need to satisfy to balance the recourse cost and post-shift validity among initially rejected individuals. We develop an algorithm based on the Implicit Function Theorem and empirically analyze its performance. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets show that personalized score targets can achieve higher validity, albeit at a higher cost. In contrast, common score targets generally offer favorable cost-validity trade-offs for lower to medium validity values.

Closed-form recourse moves a rejected user along the unit gradient $\hat g$ of the classifier score $f$ by the promised distance $d_p=|f(x)|/\|\nabla f(x)\|$, at which the linearized score reaches zero. We ask when this one-shot step succeeds and what additional model queries change. To leading order the step ends on the favorable side exactly when the path curvature $κ=\hat g^\top\nabla^2 f(x)\,\hat g$ is nonnegative. Across 80 shallow models, the fraction of rejected users whose step ends there and the fraction with $κ\ge0$ correlate at $r=0.985$, although on Fashion-MNIST the first falls below the second by 8.2 points on average. No rule that uses only the score value and gradient can be valid for every score with path curvature bounded by $K$ without overshooting some by order $Kd_p^2/\|\nabla f(x)\|$. When the curvature is also Lipschitz and the step is short, one evaluation of $f$ at the promised point attains the minimax rate among deterministic one-query rules that know the curvature bound and its Lipschitz constant, and split-conformal calibration makes such a rule reach the first crossing or abstain with probability at least $1-δ$. Training with an asymmetric curvature penalty lets 99-100% of paths cross within the promised step on undershoot-prone shallow data, at about 4-22 times the overshoot of symmetric penalties (Fashion-MNIST, COMPAS). Because $κ$ and $d_p$ depend on how the score is scaled, part of this gain can be a longer promised step, and at matched validity a smaller audit of briefly trained models finds no uniform advantage over tuned inflation. Where a per-user line search along the ray is affordable, it is exact to grid resolution and preferable.

Algorithmic recourse methods typically assume that a predictive model has access to all features of an individual. In practice, decisions are often made with partial information, because features are costly to acquire. Active feature acquisition addresses cost-constrained prediction, but existing methods are explanation-agnostic: prior work provides explanations only after acquiring additional features, rather than using explanations to drive acquisition. This work flips that and treats algorithmic recourse and feature acquisition jointly. We use Markov Blanket theory to unify counterfactual, semifactual, and alterfactual explanations and to characterize how available recourse grows as features are acquired. Building on this framework, we propose an Explanation-Driven Feature Acquisition (EDFA) method that selects features by explanatory value per unit cost. The framework is further extended with distribution-free validity guarantees for recourse issued from partial information, which signal trustworthy, lower-cost recourse, along with a lower bound on the calibration data required to certify them. Experiments on 7 publicly available datasets with neural network-based predictive models show that EDFA acquires substantially fewer features than state-of-the-art AFA baselines while maintaining comparable accuracy and yielding more decision-relevant, actionable recourse. The implementation is available on GitHub.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

When an AI system is deployed, the individuals who use and or are evaluated by it form beliefs about how the system operates and use those beliefs to strategically present their preferences, behaviors, or attributes. The system then responds with feedback or a decision outcome, thereby creating a human-AI interaction loop. This thesis studies how to design and shape such interactions to achieve three goals: (1) help individuals develop accurate beliefs about the AI systems so they can improve and or secure favorable outcomes at minimal cost, (2) encourage improvement and or discourage gaming behaviors, and (3) ensure that the AI system continues to achieve its intended objectives, such as maximizing accuracy. To address these goals, the thesis is organized into three complementary parts that examine and study human-AI interactions from the perspectives of both evaluated individuals and AI systems. Together, the work presented in this thesis advances human-centered machine learning by providing principles and methods for designing AI systems that align with human needs, values, and capabilities. Methodologically, this thesis integrates theoretical analysis, data-driven modeling, human-subject experiments, and empirical evaluations on real-world and semi-synthetic datasets.

Algorithmic recourse seeks to help individuals reverse unfavorable automated decisions by recommending actionable changes that achieve a desired outcome. As an individual usually has several distinct routes to a favorable decision, and different people can act on different ones, a recourse system should offer multiple realistic alternatives rather than one. Existing approaches formulate recourse as an optimization problem that constructs one or a small set of counterfactuals rather than modeling the underlying space of feasible solutions, and in practice each sacrifices diversity, plausibility, or feasibility to secure the others. We propose Tractable Recourse Distributions, a probabilistic framework that represents the space of feasible alternatives for a given factual instance as a probability distribution over favorable outcomes. For commonly used cost functions based on proximity and the number of feature changes, we show that this distribution admits an exact representation as a probabilistic circuit, obtained by exponentially tilting the circuit; each individual's distribution is therefore available in closed form, without retraining the model. Sampling from these distributions naturally produces diverse and plausible recourses, while the tilting parameters provide explicit control over their proximity and sparsity. Experiments on standard algorithmic recourse benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework attains diversity, plausibility, and feasibility simultaneously, while retaining sufficient probability mass over feasible counterfactuals for rejection sampling to be practical. A visual study on MNIST illustrates how the tilt strength trades proximity against validity.

Algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable changes to improve their predicted outcomes in high-stakes classification settings, such as loan and mortgage applications. However, most existing approaches focus only on flipping a model's prediction, without accounting for whether the recommended changes lead to genuine improvement in an individual's true qualifications or merely enable strategic gaming of the classifier. Consequently, deployed recourse policies can induce behavioral responses that degrade predictive accuracy and become ineffective after model retraining. In this work, we formalize this failure mode through a causal performative framework for recourse. We model how recourse actions propagate through a structural causal model, capturing interactions among features as well as their effect on the true label. These causal responses induce a non-convex optimization problem, even under standard convex losses. We characterize conditions under which performatively stable solutions exist and can be efficiently computed via simple iterative dynamics. Our analysis reveals that recourse policies that ignore causal structure can induce large, misaligned behavioral responses, whereas causal recourse leads to stable equilibria that reduce incentives for gaming. Experiments on both semi-synthetic and real credit datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms standard empirical risk minimization while reducing the need for repeated model retraining to accommodate distribution shifts caused by strategic agent behavior.

Algorithmic recourse addresses the challenge of providing tailored recommendations to users affected by unfavorable machine learning decisions, in potentially high-stakes scenarios. Traditional approaches to recourse often rely on the closest counterfactual explanations or assume a priori knowledge of a user's causal structure, resulting in interventions that overlook individual contexts and specific feature interactions. To overcome these limitations, we study a human-in-the-loop framework that iteratively approximates the user's structural causal model through interactive queries via Bayesian inference before producing recourse recommendations. This framework exploits humans' feedback to improve the identification of causal effects, allowing personalized recourse that is plausible, cost-effective, and aligned with the actual causal dependencies of each user. As a proof of concept, we evaluate this framework through simulated human responses. Our simulations across linear and non-linear causal models show promising results, though challenges remain in capturing complex, non-linear structures, emphasizing the importance of accurate approximations and robust noise distribution modeling.

Recent advances in reinforcement learning have produced superhuman agents across a wide range of competitive games. As a byproduct, researchers have begun studying how these agents play, extracting behavioral representations, analyzing decision structure, and modeling the latent geometry of expert performance. However, this growing body of work has overwhelmingly focused on defeating human players rather than providing feedback, leaving a critical gap in creating model solutions to improve human players. Unlike chess and Go, where AI has become integral to player training, real-time strategy (RTS) games lack principled frameworks for translating expert knowledge into actionable feedback. We introduce Latent Maps of Performance, a framework for counterfactual path generation. We focus on StarCraft~II data to model player improvement as an algorithmic recourse within a learned representation space. As inspiration for our work, we have looked at the championship model used in sports science. We trained a Guided Variational Autoencoder model on 23,305 professional tournament replays, enabling counterfactual traversal between losing and winning gameplay profiles. To fulfill our goal, we have devised and verified four traversal strategies on out-of-distribution (OOD) data randomly sampled from a dataset of amateur replays, namely linear interpolation, iterative optimal transport, density-regularized gradient ascent, and neural flow matching, each designed to generate multi-step improvement trajectories that remain grounded in observed expert behavior while moving a player's profile toward winning configurations. Feedback is extracted at multiple granularities to support players at different stages of improvement. Finally, we conclude that there is a trade-off between the path-finding methods we employ and hope that future research will focus on developing model solutions for human improvement.

Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision. However, decision-makers often rely not only on predicted labels but also on confidence thresholds and risk margins. Counterfactuals that barely cross a decision boundary can be fragile and unstable under noise or model variation. In this paper, we propose Target-confidence Recourse Using tSeTlin machines (TRUST), a framework in which users explicitly specify the desired prediction confidence for recourse. Rather than generating counterfactuals and evaluating confidence afterward, TRUST directly searches for minimal changes that satisfy a user-defined confidence target, enabling comparison of recourse options in terms of cost, confidence, and robustness. We instantiate TRUST using a Probabilistic Tsetlin Machine (PTM) combined with Bayesian optimization. The probabilistic clause-based structure of PTM links prediction confidence to the stability of decision rules. We show that counterfactuals satisfying the same rules can still differ substantially in reliability depending on how securely they satisfy those rules, revealing whether decisions are supported by robust or fragile clause activations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that target-confidence counterfactuals produce more robust and interpretable recourse than conventional boundary-based approaches. Across multiple benchmarks, TRUST achieves perfect robustness while maintaining low recourse cost, including an L2 distance of 0.10 on the Haberman dataset at 0.92 confidence. By explicitly controlling confidence and exposing rule-level stability, TRUST provides actionable recourse for high-stakes decision support.

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported results. We introduce \emph{RecourseBench}, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments namely, modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers -- Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation -- governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. To address the reproducibility gap in prior benchmarks, we introduce a four-tier classification system in which every integrated method is validated by an automated test suite against its originally reported results. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven comparison across methods, datasets, and model architectures. Our framework currently integrates 28 state-of-the-art recourse methods and, to our knowledge, constitutes the first recourse benchmark to explicitly enforce method-level reproducibility through automated, quantitative testing.

Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model. In practice, affected individuals often benefit from multiple feasible alternatives rather than a single optimal explanation. A natural way to produce such alternatives is to prompt large language models (LLMs). However, prompting incurs a practical constraint: the number of LLM calls is often the dominant computational and economic cost. Together, the need for multiple alternatives and this cost constraint shift the problem from finding a single high-quality counterfactual to efficiently generating a set of oracle-validated counterfactuals under a fixed LLM-call budget. In this work, we study counterfactual recourse generation in the LLM-agentic setting as a fixed-budget search problem and propose Recourse Monte Carlo Tree Search (ReCo-MCTS), an agentic tree-search framework that aims to increase the yield of unique, oracle-validated counterfactuals under this budget while accounting for the extent of the required changes. ReCo-MCTS combines LLM-based multi-candidate generation, constraint checking, black-box oracle evaluation, and UCT-guided tree search to accumulate valid counterfactuals under a fixed LLM-call budget. On four real-world tabular datasets, ReCo-MCTS returns more counterfactuals than the evaluated baselines in our main comparison under the specified resource limits, with trade-offs in the extent of the required changes.

Hard constraints are usually treated as terminal vetoes: once a candidate violates a requirement, the learned rule rejects it and any repair is handled outside the decision semantics. This misses a common deployed regime in which the system already knows a finite menu of modifications, such as adding a ticket option, changing a configuration, or requesting an available service upgrade. Existing constraint-learning, soft-relaxation, and recourse methods address nearby problems, but they do not learn whether an option should be repaired before being vetoed. We introduce Repair-Augmented Constraint Learning (RACL), a contextual decision framework that lifts known repair operators into the classifier semantics. A candidate is accepted when an affordable repair makes it feasible and preferred enough; otherwise the system returns a structured rejection credit and, when applicable, a repair plan. This repair-before-veto view strictly generalizes no-repair HASSLE-style semantics, reveals an irreducible false-veto gap for terminal-veto rules, separates binary-label non-identifiability from decision-rule learnability, and gives capacity and calibration bounds for the observed-feasibility shared-weight setting. Across controlled and DB1B-derived benchmarks, RACL recovers the intended credit and repair structure. On the hardest raw-data-derived tier, validation-selected RACL reduces false vetoes to 10/4039 (FVR 0.0025), versus about 1064/4039 for the strongest repair-search black-box baseline, while making the FVR/EDR trade-off explicit.

As predictive models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as credit approval, there is a growing need for post-hoc methods that provide recourse to affected individuals. Many such models operate on tabular data, where features correspond to real-world attributes. Recently, in-context learning (ICL) has enabled large language models to perform tabular prediction by conditioning on labeled examples at inference time, without explicit training. However, algorithmic recourse for tabular decision-making under ICL remains largely unexplored. In this work, we present the first study of algorithmic recourse for tabular data under ICL. We carry out a theoretical analysis, showing that recourse remains well-defined and bounded, and we characterize how recourse converges toward classical solutions as the context size increases. In practice, we propose a novel zeroth-order recourse framework, Adaptive Subspace Recourse for In-Context Learning (ASR-ICL), that efficiently generates actionable and sparse recourse for black-box ICL models. The proposed framework naturally extends to multi-class tabular tasks. Experiments across multiple real-world datasets and models demonstrate that ASR-ICL achieves recourse quality comparable to existing methods with fewer queries and empirically confirm the predicted convergence behavior, supporting our theoretical analysis.

Quantization can preserve predictive accuracy under low-bit deployment while silently breaking algorithmic recourse: an actionable change that flips a decision before quantization may fail after quantization, or become substantially more costly. We formalize counterfactual sensitivity under quantization through validity, cost, and direction stability, and introduce two metrics: Validity Drop (VD) and Counterfactual Recourse Gap (CRG) that reveal recourse failures invisible to accuracy. We propose Counterfactual-Faithful Quantization (CFQ), which trains quantizer parameters and mixed-precision bit allocation to preserve counterfactual behavior by enforcing the target outcome at teacher recourse points under a global bit budget. A margin-based analysis gives a sufficient condition for recourse transfer under bounded quantization perturbations. Experiments on Adult, German Credit, and COMPAS show that accuracy-matched baselines can significantly degrade recourse stability, while CFQ maintains accuracy and substantially improves VD and CRG across bit budgets.

Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

The trustworthiness of AI decision-making systems is increasingly important. A key feature of such systems is the ability to provide recommendations for how an individual may reverse a negative decision, a problem known as algorithmic recourse. Existing approaches treat recourse outcomes as counterfactuals of a fixed unit, ignoring that real-world recourse involves repeated decisions on the same individual under possibly different latent conditions. We develop a causal framework that models recourse as a process over pre- and post-intervention outcomes, allowing for partial stability and resampling of latent variables. We introduce post-recourse stability conditions that enable reasoning about recourse from observational data alone, and develop a copula-based algorithm for inferring the effects of recourse under these conditions. For settings where paired observations of the same individual before and after intervention are available (called recourse data), we develop methods for inferring copula parameters and performing goodness-of-fit testing. When the copula model is rejected, we provide a distribution-free algorithm for learning recourse effects directly from recourse data. We demonstrate the value of the proposed methods on real and semi-synthetic datasets.

Actionable Recourse provides individuals with actions they can take to change an unfavorable classifier outcome. While useful at the instance level, it is ill-suited for global auditing and bias detection, since aggregating local actions is costly and often inconsistent. Recourse Summaries address this limitation by partitioning the population and assigning one shared action per subgroup, enabling comparison across subgroups. Designing summaries involves a fundamental trade-off between recourse effectiveness and recourse cost, which existing methods do not adequately address. We introduce Summaries of Optimal and Global Actionable Recourse (SOGAR), which formulates recourse summary learning as an optimal decision tree learning problem and finds the Pareto front -- the complete set of solutions where improving one objective necessarily worsens the other. SOGAR enables post-hoc selection of the desired trade-off without retraining. Using shallow axis-parallel decision trees and sparse leaf actions, SOGAR produces stable, low-cost, and effective recourse summaries that outperform existing approaches across effectiveness and cost metrics.

Algorithmic recourse promises to help applicants rejected by automated systems by explaining the changes needed to secure acceptance. What incentive do decision-makers, such as banks and employers, have to offer recourse? We study this question in a screening model in which recourse is both productive and selective: completing recourse improves an applicant's value to the decision-maker, but applicants differ in their cost of completion. The optimal policy is a threshold rule: reject applicants with low scores, offer recourse to an intermediate range of scores, and accept applicants with high scores outright. Because the intermediate range spans the cutoff that would separate acceptance from rejection when recourse is not available, some marginal applicants gain a new path to acceptance, while others---who would have been accepted outright---must now clear a costly hurdle.