# Personalized Causal Recourse: A Human-In-The-Loop Approach

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03425 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03425/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.06278/) (2020)
- [Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06831/) (2020)
- [On the Adversarial Robustness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11313/) (2021)
- [Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.13743/) (2022)
- [Exploiting Preference Elicitation in Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse: An Initial Exploration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05270/) (2024)
- [Time Can Invalidate Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08007/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Algorithmic recourse addresses the challenge of providing tailored recommendations to users affected by unfavorable machine learning decisions, in potentially high-stakes scenarios. Traditional approaches to recourse often rely on the closest counterfactual explanations or assume a priori knowledge of a user's causal structure, resulting in interventions that overlook individual contexts and specific feature interactions. To overcome these limitations, we study a human-in-the-loop framework that iteratively approximates the user's structural causal model through interactive queries via Bayesian inference before producing recourse recommendations. This framework exploits humans' feedback to improve the identification of causal effects, allowing personalized recourse that is plausible, cost-effective, and aligned with the actual causal dependencies of each user. As a proof of concept, we evaluate this framework through simulated human responses. Our simulations across linear and non-linear causal models show promising results, though challenges remain in capturing complex, non-linear structures, emphasizing the importance of accurate approximations and robust noise distribution modeling.