Low-Cost Algorithmic Recourse for Users With Uncertain Cost Functions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
People affected by machine learning model decisions may benefit greatly from access to recourses, i.e. suggestions about what features they could change to receive a more favorable decision from the model. Current approaches try to optimize for the cost incurred by users when adopting a recourse, but they assume that all users share the same cost function. This is an unrealistic assumption because users might have diverse preferences about their willingness to change certain features. In this work, we introduce a new method for identifying recourse sets for users which does not assume that users' preferences are known in advance. We propose an objective function, Expected Minimum Cost (EMC), based on two key ideas: (1) when presenting a set of options to a user, there only needs to be one low-cost solution that the user could adopt; (2) when we do not know the user's true cost function, we can approximately optimize for user satisfaction by first sampling plausible cost functions from a distribution, then finding a recourse set that achieves a good cost for these samples. We optimize EMC with a novel discrete optimization algorithm, Cost Optimized Local Search (COLS), which is guaranteed to improve the recourse set quality over iterations. Experimental evaluation on popular real-world datasets with simulated users demonstrates that our method satisfies up to 25.89 percentage points more users compared to strong baseline methods, while, the human evaluation shows that our recourses are preferred more than twice as often as the strongest baseline recourses. Finally, using standard fairness metrics we show that our method can provide more fair solutions across demographic groups than baselines. We provide our source code at: https://github.com/prateeky2806/EMC-COLS-recourse
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Nov 2021.
Builds on
24 of 47 references.
References · 24
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
- 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 328
- 2018Explanations based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negativescited by 262
- 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
- 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 233
- 2019Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypescited by 223
- 2019Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisionscited by 204
- 2020Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanationscited by 157
- 2019Learning Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Tabular Datacited by 146
12 more
- 2020Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approachcited by 140
- 2019Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systemscited by 131
- 2020A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospectscited by 118
- 2021Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulatedcited by 113
- 2021Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 102
- 2021CARLA: A Python Library to Benchmark Algorithmic Recourse and Counterfactual Explanation Algorithmscited by 86
- 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 70
- 2018Bayesian Optimization of Combinatorial Structurescited by 64
- 2020DECE: Decision Explorer with Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Modelscited by 38
- 2020ViCE: Visual Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Modelscited by 34
- 2020PermuteAttack: Counterfactual Explanation of Machine Learning Credit Scorecardscited by 16
- 2018Evaluating Fairness Metrics in the Presence of Dataset Biascited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2023Achieving Diversity in Counterfactual Explanations: a Review and Discussioncited by 11
- 2022Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitationcited by 9
- 2022Framing Algorithmic Recourse for Anomaly Detectioncited by 5
- 2023Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Setscited by 4
- 2023Towards User Guided Actionable Recoursecited by 1
- 2025Understanding Endogenous Data Drift in Adaptive Models with Recourse-Seeking Userscited by 1
- 2026From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recoursecited by 1
- 2024Cost-Adaptive Recourse Recommendation by Adaptive Preference Elicitationcited by 0
- 2025Am I Being Treated Fairly? A Conceptual Framework for Individuals to Ascertain Fairnesscited by 0
- 2026RecourseBench: A Modular Framework for Reproducible Algorithmic Recourse Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026RecourseBench: A Modular Framework for Reproducible Algorithmic Recourse Evaluation15 Jun 2026
- 2026From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse9 Apr 2026
- 2025Am I Being Treated Fairly? A Conceptual Framework for Individuals to Ascertain Fairness3 Apr 2025
- 2025Understanding Endogenous Data Drift in Adaptive Models with Recourse-Seeking Users12 Mar 2025
- 2024Cost-Adaptive Recourse Recommendation by Adaptive Preference Elicitation23 Feb 2024
- 2023Towards User Guided Actionable Recourse5 Sep 2023
- 2023Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets24 Aug 2023
- 2023Achieving Diversity in Counterfactual Explanations: a Review and Discussion10 May 2023
- 2022Framing Algorithmic Recourse for Anomaly Detection29 Jun 2022
- 2022Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitation27 May 2022