# Causal Algorithmic Recourse: Foundations and Methods

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11373 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11373/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.06514/) (2018)
- [Preserving Causal Constraints in Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.03277/) (2019)
- [Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06831/) (2020)
- [Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.09615/) (2019)
- [The Hidden Assumptions Behind Counterfactual Explanations and Principal Reasons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.04930/) (2019)
- [Probabilities of Causation: Bounds and Identification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1301.3898/) (2013)
- [On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.06529/) (2020)
- [Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03190/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.