Algorithmic Recourse with Missing Values

Overview

• This paper proposes a new framework for algorithmic recourse (AR) that can handle missing values in the input data.
• Algorithmic recourse aims to provide actions that a user can take to change an undesirable prediction made by a machine learning model.
• Existing AR methods assume complete information is available, but in reality, we often encounter missing values due to privacy concerns or other issues.
• The paper shows that a naive approach using single imputation techniques can fail to obtain valid, low-cost recourse actions, and proposes a solution based on multiple imputation and optimization.

Plain English Explanation

The paper tackles the problem of algorithmic recourse, which is about providing people with actions they can take to change an undesirable decision made by a machine learning model. For example, if a model denies someone a loan, algorithmic recourse would suggest steps the person could take to get approved, like increasing their income or reducing debt.

Existing recourse methods assume the model has access to complete information about the person, but in reality, data is often missing due to privacy concerns or other issues. The authors show that a simple way of filling in the missing data, called single imputation, can lead to recourse actions that are not valid or too costly for the person to actually implement.

To address this, the paper proposes a new framework that uses a technique called multiple imputation. This involves generating multiple plausible versions of the missing data, and then finding recourse actions that work well across all of them. The authors provide a mathematical formulation of this problem and a practical solution using optimization techniques.

The key idea is to find recourse actions that are both valid (i.e., actually change the model's decision) and low-cost for the person, even when dealing with incomplete information. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach through experiments.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a new framework for Algorithmic Recourse (AR) that can handle missing values in the input data. AR aims to provide a user with actions they can take to change an undesirable prediction made by a machine learning model.

Existing AR methods assume complete information is available for the input instance (e.g., all features are observed). However, in practice, we often encounter missing values due to privacy concerns or other issues. The authors first show, both empirically and theoretically, that a naive approach using single imputation techniques can fail to obtain valid, low-cost recourse actions in the presence of missing data.

To address this, the paper formulates the task of finding a valid and low-cost recourse action for an incomplete input instance by incorporating the idea of multiple imputation. This involves generating multiple plausible versions of the missing data, and then optimizing for recourse actions that work well across all of them.

The authors provide a mathematical formulation of this problem and propose a practical solution based on mixed-integer linear optimization. The key idea is to find recourse actions that are both valid (i.e., actually change the model's decision) and low-cost for the user, even when dealing with incomplete information.

Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method in the presence of missing values, compared to baseline approaches.

Critical Analysis

The paper addresses an important and practical issue in the field of algorithmic recourse, namely the handling of missing values in the input data. The authors provide a thorough theoretical and empirical analysis of the limitations of existing methods and propose a novel solution based on multiple imputation and optimization.

One potential limitation of the approach is the computational complexity of the optimization problem, which may make it challenging to scale to large-scale, real-world applications. The authors acknowledge this and suggest potential avenues for future research to address this, such as developing more efficient optimization algorithms.

Additionally, the paper focuses on a specific type of missing data mechanism (i.e., missing at random), and it would be interesting to see how the proposed framework would perform under other missing data mechanisms, such as missing not at random.

Overall, the paper presents a compelling and well-executed solution to an important problem in the field of algorithmic recourse. The authors have made a valuable contribution, and their work opens up interesting directions for further research in this area.

Conclusion

This paper proposes a novel framework for algorithmic recourse that can handle missing values in the input data, a common challenge in real-world applications. The key idea is to use multiple imputation to generate plausible versions of the missing data, and then optimize for recourse actions that work well across all of them.

The authors show that a naive approach using single imputation techniques can fail to obtain valid, low-cost recourse actions, and they provide a mathematical formulation and practical solution to address this issue. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method compared to baseline approaches.

This work has important implications for making algorithmic decision-making more transparent and accountable, as it enables users to understand and potentially change undesirable model predictions, even in the presence of incomplete information. The authors have made a valuable contribution to the field, and their research opens up interesting directions for further exploration.