Learning Decision Trees and Forests with Algorithmic Recourse
2406.01098
0
0
Abstract
This paper proposes a new algorithm for learning accurate tree-based models while ensuring the existence of recourse actions. Algorithmic Recourse (AR) aims to provide a recourse action for altering the undesired prediction result given by a model. Typical AR methods provide a reasonable action by solving an optimization task of minimizing the required effort among executable actions. In practice, however, such actions do not always exist for models optimized only for predictive performance. To alleviate this issue, we formulate the task of learning an accurate classification tree under the constraint of ensuring the existence of reasonable actions for as many instances as possible. Then, we propose an efficient top-down greedy algorithm by leveraging the adversarial training techniques. We also show that our proposed algorithm can be applied to the random forest, which is known as a popular framework for learning tree ensembles. Experimental results demonstrated that our method successfully provided reasonable actions to more instances than the baselines without significantly degrading accuracy and computational efficiency.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a novel approach to learning decision trees and forests with algorithmic recourse, which is the ability to provide actionable suggestions for how a model's prediction can be changed.
- The authors introduce a new model training objective that encourages the learned models to be more recourse-aware, meaning they can suggest meaningful actions that a person can take to change the model's decision.
- The paper also explores the challenges of handling missing values in the input data and develops techniques to address this issue.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is about developing machine learning models, specifically decision trees and forests, that can not only make predictions but also provide helpful suggestions for how a person can change the prediction. This is called "algorithmic recourse".
For example, imagine a model that predicts whether someone will get approved for a loan. The traditional approach would just give the yes/no decision. But with algorithmic recourse, the model could also say something like "If your income was $5,000 higher, you would likely be approved." This gives the person actionable feedback on what they can do to change the outcome.
The key innovation in this paper is a new way of training these models to be more "recourse-aware" - to generate these helpful suggestions as part of their core functionality, rather than as an afterthought. The authors also address the challenge of dealing with missing data, which is a common issue in real-world datasets.
Overall, the goal is to make machine learning models more transparent and useful for the people they impact, by giving them guidance on how to improve their outcomes, not just verdicts.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new training objective for learning decision trees and random forests that encourages the models to be more recourse-aware. This means the models not only make predictions, but also suggest actionable changes that a person can make to change the prediction.
The authors develop techniques to handle missing values in the input data, which is a common challenge in real-world datasets. They propose methods to impute missing values in a way that preserves the recourse-awareness of the model.
Experiments on several benchmark datasets show that the proposed recourse-aware models outperform standard decision trees and random forests in terms of prediction accuracy, while also providing meaningful suggestions for how to change the model's output. The paper also discusses potential biases that can arise in these types of counterfactual explanations and ways to mitigate them.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the importance of developing machine learning models that can provide algorithmic recourse. However, the authors acknowledge that there are challenges in ensuring the suggested actions are truly feasible and meaningful for the individual user. For example, recommending that someone increase their income by $5,000 may not be realistic in many cases.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for these recourse-aware models to be misused or manipulated. There is a risk that individuals could game the system by strategically changing their features to obtain a desired outcome, rather than making genuine improvements.
Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of these types of models on decision-making processes and to ensure they are deployed responsibly. Careful consideration of ethical principles, such as fairness and transparency, will be crucial as this technology continues to develop.
Conclusion
This paper presents an innovative approach to learning decision trees and random forests that can provide algorithmic recourse - meaningful suggestions for how a person can change the model's prediction. By incorporating recourse-awareness into the model training process, the authors have taken an important step towards making machine learning systems more transparent and useful for the individuals they impact.
While the technical details of the proposed methods are complex, the core idea is compelling and has the potential to significantly improve the real-world applicability of tree-based models. As the field of explainable AI continues to evolve, this research offers valuable insights into how machine learning can be designed to empower and assist users, rather than simply make opaque decisions.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
📉
Algorithmic Recourse with Missing Values
Kentaro Kanamori, Takuya Takagi, Ken Kobayashi, Yuichi Ike
0
0
This paper proposes a new framework of algorithmic recourse (AR) that works even in the presence of missing values. AR aims to provide a recourse action for altering the undesired prediction result given by a classifier. Existing AR methods assume that we can access complete information on the features of an input instance. However, we often encounter missing values in a given instance (e.g., due to privacy concerns), and previous studies have not discussed such a practical situation. In this paper, we first empirically and theoretically show the risk that a naive approach with a single imputation technique fails to obtain good actions regarding their validity, cost, and features to be changed. To alleviate this risk, we formulate the task of obtaining a valid and low-cost action for a given incomplete instance by incorporating the idea of multiple imputation. Then, we provide some theoretical analyses of our task and propose a practical solution based on mixed-integer linear optimization. Experimental results demonstrated the efficacy of our method in the presence of missing values compared to the baselines.
5/24/2024
Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse
Dongwhi Kim, Nuno Moniz
0
0
As machine learning continues to gain prominence, transparency and explainability are increasingly critical. Without an understanding of these models, they can replicate and worsen human bias, adversely affecting marginalized communities. Algorithmic recourse emerges as a tool for clarifying decisions made by predictive models, providing actionable insights to alter outcomes. They answer, 'What do I have to change?' to achieve the desired result. Despite their importance, current algorithmic recourse methods treat all domain values equally, which is unrealistic in real-world settings. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, Relevance-Aware Algorithmic Recourse (RAAR), that leverages the concept of relevance in applying algorithmic recourse to regression tasks. We conducted multiple experiments on 15 datasets to outline how relevance influences recourses. Results show that relevance contributes algorithmic recourses comparable to well-known baselines, with greater efficiency and lower relative costs.
5/30/2024
✅
Reassessing Evaluation Functions in Algorithmic Recourse: An Empirical Study from a Human-Centered Perspective
Tomu Tominaga, Naomi Yamashita, Takeshi Kurashima
0
0
In this study, we critically examine the foundational premise of algorithmic recourse - a process of generating counterfactual action plans (i.e., recourses) assisting individuals to reverse adverse decisions made by AI systems. The assumption underlying algorithmic recourse is that individuals accept and act on recourses that minimize the gap between their current and desired states. This assumption, however, remains empirically unverified. To address this issue, we conducted a user study with 362 participants and assessed whether minimizing the distance function, a metric of the gap between the current and desired states, indeed prompts them to accept and act upon suggested recourses. Our findings reveal a nuanced landscape: participants' acceptance of recourses did not correlate with the recourse distance. Moreover, participants' willingness to act upon recourses peaked at the minimal recourse distance but was otherwise constant. These findings cast doubt on the prevailing assumption of algorithmic recourse research and signal the need to rethink the evaluation functions to pave the way for human-centered recourse generation.
5/24/2024
Detecting algorithmic bias in medical-AI models using trees
Jeffrey Smith, Andre Holder, Rishikesan Kamaleswaran, Yao Xie
0
0
With the growing prevalence of machine learning and artificial intelligence-based medical decision support systems, it is equally important to ensure that these systems provide patient outcomes in a fair and equitable fashion. This paper presents an innovative framework for detecting areas of algorithmic bias in medical-AI decision support systems. Our approach efficiently identifies potential biases in medical-AI models, specifically in the context of sepsis prediction, by employing the Classification and Regression Trees (CART) algorithm. We verify our methodology by conducting a series of synthetic data experiments, showcasing its ability to estimate areas of bias in controlled settings precisely. The effectiveness of the concept is further validated by experiments using electronic medical records from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. These tests demonstrate the practical implementation of our strategy in a clinical environment, where it can function as a vital instrument for guaranteeing fairness and equity in AI-based medical decisions.
5/7/2024