Extracting Incentives from Black-Box Decisions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
An algorithmic decision-maker incentivizes people to act in certain ways to receive better decisions. These incentives can dramatically influence subjects' behaviors and lives, and it is important that both decision-makers and decision-recipients have clarity on which actions are incentivized by the chosen model. While for linear functions, the changes a subject is incentivized to make may be clear, we prove that for many non-linear functions (e.g. neural networks, random forests), classical methods for interpreting the behavior of models (e.g. input gradients) provide poor advice to individuals on which actions they should take. In this work, we propose a mathematical framework for understanding algorithmic incentives as the challenge of solving a Markov Decision Process, where the state includes the set of input features, and the reward is a function of the model's output. We can then leverage the many toolkits for solving MDPs (e.g. tree-based planning, reinforcement learning) to identify the optimal actions each individual is incentivized to take to improve their decision under a given model. We demonstrate the utility of our method by estimating the maximally-incentivized actions in two real-world settings: a recidivism risk predictor we train using ProPublica's COMPAS dataset, and an online credit scoring tool published by the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO).
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2021Consequence-aware Sequential Counterfactual Generationcited by 17
- 2023Performative Recommendation: Diversifying Content via Strategic Incentivescited by 12
- 2022Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitationcited by 9
- 2022Reinforcement Learning with Stepwise Fairness Constraintscited by 9
- 2022Synthesizing explainable counterfactual policies for algorithmic recourse with program synthesiscited by 8
- 2024Learning Actionable Counterfactual Explanations in Large State Spacescited by 1
- 2026Position: Explainable AI is Causality in Disguisecited by 0
- 2026Shaping Human-AI Interactions to Provide Improvement Pathways and Balance Competing Objectivescited by 0
- 2026Shaping Human-AI Interactions to Provide Improvement Pathways and Balance Competing Objectives6 Aug 2026
- 2026Position: Explainable AI is Causality in Disguise30 Mar 2026
- 2024Learning Actionable Counterfactual Explanations in Large State Spaces25 Apr 2024
- 2023Performative Recommendation: Diversifying Content via Strategic Incentives8 Feb 2023
- 2022Reinforcement Learning with Stepwise Fairness Constraints8 Nov 2022
- 2022Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitation27 May 2022
- 2022Synthesizing explainable counterfactual policies for algorithmic recourse with program synthesis18 Jan 2022
- 2021Consequence-aware Sequential Counterfactual Generation12 Apr 2021