Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse
2405.19072
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces a new approach called "Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse" that aims to generate counterfactual explanations that are more relevant and meaningful to users.
- The key idea is to incorporate the user's preferences and priorities into the process of generating counterfactual explanations, rather than relying solely on algorithmic optimization.
- The paper presents a framework that combines Bayesian optimization with a model of user relevance, allowing the system to generate recourse actions that better align with the user's goals and constraints.
Plain English Explanation
When an AI system makes a decision about a person, such as denying them a loan, the person may want to understand how they can change the outcome. This is known as "algorithmic recourse" - finding actions the person can take to get a different result from the AI.
Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse aims to make this process more useful for the person. Instead of just giving the person a list of actions to try, it takes into account their priorities and what changes would be most meaningful to them.
The key insight is that people care about more than just the final outcome - they also want recourse actions that align with their own goals and constraints. For example, someone denied a loan may care more about being able to afford the monthly payments than the exact credit score.
By incorporating the user's relevance model into the recourse generation process, the system can suggest actions that are not only effective, but also personally relevant and actionable for the individual. This makes the recourse more useful and meaningful for the person impacted by the AI decision.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework called "Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse" that combines Bayesian optimization with a model of user relevance. This allows the system to generate counterfactual explanations that are optimized not just for effectiveness, but also for personal relevance to the user.
The key technical components are:
-
Bayesian Optimization: The system uses Bayesian optimization to efficiently search the space of possible recourse actions and find ones that change the AI's decision. This builds on prior work in algorithmic recourse.
-
Relevance Model: The system also learns a model of the user's preferences and priorities, capturing what changes would be most meaningful and relevant to them. This relevance model is then incorporated into the optimization process.
-
Combined Optimization: The final recourse suggestions are generated by optimizing both the effectiveness of the recourse action and its relevance to the user's goals and constraints. This allows the system to balance these two objectives.
The paper evaluates this approach on both synthetic and real-world datasets, demonstrating that it can generate recourse actions that are more relevant and meaningful to users compared to standard algorithmic recourse methods. This represents an important step towards making AI systems more transparent and user-centric.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling approach to improving the usefulness and relevance of algorithmic recourse. By incorporating the user's priorities and constraints, the system can generate recourse actions that are not just mathematically optimal, but also personally meaningful.
However, the paper also acknowledges some important limitations and areas for future work:
-
User Modeling: Accurately capturing a user's relevance model is a significant challenge. The paper uses simple linear models, but more sophisticated preference elicitation techniques may be needed in practice, as explored in this related work.
-
Reachability: The recourse actions suggested by the system may not always be feasible or "reachable" for the user, as discussed in this paper. Further work is needed to ensure the suggested actions are truly actionable.
-
Handling Missing Data: Many real-world datasets have missing values, which can complicate the recourse generation process, as addressed in this related work. The current paper does not explicitly consider this challenge.
-
Scalability and Explainability: As the complexity of the user's relevance model and the AI system's decision-making process increases, the recourse generation may become computationally intensive and harder to explain to users. Balancing these tradeoffs is an important area for future research.
Overall, the "Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse" approach represents a valuable step forward in making AI systems more transparent and user-centric. However, further work is needed to address the practical challenges of deploying such systems in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a novel framework called "Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse" that aims to generate more meaningful and personalized counterfactual explanations for AI-based decisions. By incorporating the user's preferences and priorities into the recourse generation process, the system can suggest actions that are not only effective at changing the outcome, but also highly relevant and actionable for the individual.
The key innovation is the combination of Bayesian optimization and a model of user relevance, which allows the system to balance the competing objectives of recourse effectiveness and personal relevance. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the benefits of this approach compared to standard algorithmic recourse methods.
While the paper highlights important limitations and areas for future work, the "Relevance-aware Algorithmic Recourse" framework represents a significant step towards making AI systems more transparent and user-centric. As AI continues to play an increasingly prominent role in high-stakes decisions, approaches like this will be crucial for building trust and empowering those impacted by algorithmic decision-making.
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
✅
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
Learning Decision Trees and Forests with Algorithmic Recourse
Kentaro Kanamori, Takuya Takagi, Ken Kobayashi, Yuichi Ike
0
0
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.
6/4/2024
📉
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
📈
Explanation Hacking: The perils of algorithmic recourse
Emily Sullivan, Atoosa Kasirzadeh
0
0
We argue that the trend toward providing users with feasible and actionable explanations of AI decisions, known as recourse explanations, comes with ethical downsides. Specifically, we argue that recourse explanations face several conceptual pitfalls and can lead to problematic explanation hacking, which undermines their ethical status. As an alternative, we advocate that explanations of AI decisions should aim at understanding.
6/19/2024