SafeAR: Safe Algorithmic Recourse by Risk-Aware Policies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the growing use of machine learning (ML) models in critical domains such as finance and healthcare, the need to offer recourse for those adversely affected by the decisions of ML models has become more important; individuals ought to be provided with recommendations on actions to take for improving their situation and thus receiving a favorable decision. Prior work on sequential algorithmic recourse -- which recommends a series of changes -- focuses on action feasibility and uses the proximity of feature changes to determine action costs. However, the uncertainties of feature changes and the risk of higher than average costs in recourse have not been considered. It is undesirable if a recourse could (with some probability) result in a worse situation from which recovery requires an extremely high cost. It is essential to incorporate risks when computing and evaluating recourse. We call the recourse computed with such risk considerations as Safe Algorithmic Recourse (SafeAR). The objective is to empower people to choose a recourse based on their risk tolerance. In this work, we discuss and show how existing recourse desiderata can fail to capture the risk of higher costs. We present a method to compute recourse policies that consider variability in cost and connect algorithmic recourse literature with risk-sensitive reinforcement learning. We also adopt measures "Value at Risk" and "Conditional Value at Risk" from the financial literature to summarize risk concisely. We apply our method to two real-world datasets and compare policies with different risk-aversion levels using risk measures and recourse desiderata (sparsity and proximity).
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2023.
Builds on
17 of 44 references.
References · 17
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,088
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
- 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
- 2015Risk-Sensitive and Robust Decision-Making: a CVaR Optimization Approachcited by 162
- 2020Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanationscited by 157
- 2019Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifierscited by 143
- 2019Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systemscited by 130
- 2021Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 101
- 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 69
5 more
- 2014Variance-Constrained Actor-Critic Algorithms for Discounted and Average Reward MDPscited by 28
- 2021ReLAX: Reinforcement Learning Agent eXplainer for Arbitrary Predictive Modelscited by 25
- 2021Directive Explanations for Actionable Explainability in Machine Learning Applicationscited by 14
- 2022RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Eliminationcited by 1
- 2022Equality of Effort via Algorithmic Recoursecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Durable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 3
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Durable Algorithmic Recourse26 Sep 2025