Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Algorithmic Recourse (AR) is the problem of computing a sequence of actions that -- once performed by a user -- overturns an undesirable machine decision. It is paramount that the sequence of actions does not require too much effort for users to implement. Yet, most approaches to AR assume that actions cost the same for all users, and thus may recommend unfairly expensive recourse plans to certain users. Prompted by this observation, we introduce PEAR, the first human-in-the-loop approach capable of providing personalized algorithmic recourse tailored to the needs of any end-user. PEAR builds on insights from Bayesian Preference Elicitation to iteratively refine an estimate of the costs of actions by asking choice set queries to the target user. The queries themselves are computed by maximizing the Expected Utility of Selection, a principled measure of information gain accounting for uncertainty on both the cost estimate and the user's responses. PEAR integrates elicitation into a Reinforcement Learning agent coupled with Monte Carlo Tree Search to quickly identify promising recourse plans. Our empirical evaluation on real-world datasets highlights how PEAR produces high-quality personalized recourse in only a handful of iterations.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2022.
Builds on
24 of 68 references.
References · 24
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
- 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 328
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 257
- 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
- 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 233
- 2020Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Reviewcited by 174
- 2018Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systemscited by 166
- 2020Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanationscited by 157
- 2019Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifierscited by 144
- 2020Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approachcited by 140
12 more
- 2019Efficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanationscited by 111
- 2021CARLA: A Python Library to Benchmark Algorithmic Recourse and Counterfactual Explanation Algorithmscited by 86
- 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 70
- 2019Equalizing Recourse across Groupscited by 55
- 2020Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behaviorcited by 44
- 2021Amortized Generation of Sequential Algorithmic Recourses for Black-box Modelscited by 24
- 2019Synthesizing Action Sequences for Modifying Model Decisionscited by 22
- 2019Combining Q-Learning and Search with Amortized Value Estimatescited by 19
- 2021Consequence-aware Sequential Counterfactual Generationcited by 17
- 2021Low-Cost Algorithmic Recourse for Users With Uncertain Cost Functionscited by 10
- 2019Extracting Incentives from Black-Box Decisionscited by 8
- 2022Synthesizing explainable counterfactual policies for algorithmic recourse with program synthesiscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
9 papers.
- 2024Exploiting Preference Elicitation in Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse: An Initial Explorationcited by 8
- 2024Time Can Invalidate Algorithmic Recoursecited by 8
- 2024Feature Responsiveness Scores: Model-Agnostic Explanations for Recoursecited by 8
- 2024Trustworthy Actionable Perturbationscited by 3
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Durable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 3
- 2026From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recoursecited by 1
- 2023Personalized Path Recourse for Reinforcement Learning Agentscited by 0
- 2024Evaluating AI Group Fairness: a Fuzzy Logic Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026Personalized Causal Recourse: A Human-In-The-Loop Approachcited by 0
- 2026Personalized Causal Recourse: A Human-In-The-Loop Approach3 Jul 2026
- 2026From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse9 Apr 2026
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Durable Algorithmic Recourse26 Sep 2025
- 2024Feature Responsiveness Scores: Model-Agnostic Explanations for Recourse29 Oct 2024
- 2024Time Can Invalidate Algorithmic Recourse10 Oct 2024
- 2024Evaluating AI Group Fairness: a Fuzzy Logic Perspective27 Jun 2024
- 2024Trustworthy Actionable Perturbations18 May 2024
- 2024Exploiting Preference Elicitation in Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse: An Initial Exploration8 Apr 2024
- 2023Personalized Path Recourse for Reinforcement Learning Agents14 Dec 2023