Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification

Machine learning models are increasingly used to automate decisions that affect humans - deciding who should receive a loan, a job interview, or a social service. In such applications, a person should have the ability to change the decision of a model. When a person is denied a loan by a credit score, for example, they should be able to alter its input variables in a way that guarantees approval. Otherwise, they will be denied the loan as long as the model is deployed. More importantly, they will lack the ability to influence a decision that affects their livelihood. In this paper, we frame these issues in terms of recourse, which we define as the ability of a person to change the decision of a model by altering actionable input variables (e.g., income vs. age or marital status). We present integer programming tools to ensure recourse in linear classification problems without interfering in model development. We demonstrate how our tools can inform stakeholders through experiments on credit scoring problems. Our results show that recourse can be significantly affected by standard practices in model development, and motivate the need to evaluate recourse in practice.Comment: Extended version. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency [FAT2019

On the Trade-Off between Actionable Explanations and the Right to be Forgotten

As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications, policymakers have suggested tighter data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). One key principle is the "right to be forgotten" which gives users the right to have their data deleted. Another key principle is the right to an actionable explanation, also known as algorithmic recourse, allowing users to reverse unfavorable decisions. To date, it is unknown whether these two principles can be operationalized simultaneously. Therefore, we introduce and study the problem of recourse invalidation in the context of data deletion requests. More specifically, we theoretically and empirically analyze the behavior of popular state-of-the-art algorithms and demonstrate that the recourses generated by these algorithms are likely to be invalidated if a small number of data deletion requests (e.g., 1 or 2) warrant updates of the predictive model. For the setting of linear models and overparameterized neural networks -- studied through the lens of neural tangent kernels (NTKs) -- we suggest a framework to identify a minimal subset of critical training points which, when removed, maximize the fraction of invalidated recourses. Using our framework, we empirically show that the removal of as little as 2 data instances from the training set can invalidate up to 95 percent of all recourses output by popular state-of-the-art algorithms. Thus, our work raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of "the right to an actionable explanation" in the context of the "right to be forgotten" while also providing constructive insights on the determining factors of recourse robustness

Leveraging Contextual Counterfactuals Toward Belief Calibration

Beliefs and values are increasingly being incorporated into our AI systems through alignment processes, such as carefully curating data collection principles or regularizing the loss function used for training. However, the meta-alignment problem is that these human beliefs are diverse and not aligned across populations; furthermore, the implicit strength of each belief may not be well calibrated even among humans, especially when trying to generalize across contexts. Specifically, in high regret situations, we observe that contextual counterfactuals and recourse costs are particularly important in updating a decision maker's beliefs and the strengths to which such beliefs are held. Therefore, we argue that including counterfactuals is key to an accurate calibration of beliefs during alignment. To do this, we first segment belief diversity into two categories: subjectivity (across individuals within a population) and epistemic uncertainty (within an individual across different contexts). By leveraging our notion of epistemic uncertainty, we introduce `the belief calibration cycle' framework to more holistically calibrate this diversity of beliefs with context-driven counterfactual reasoning by using a multi-objective optimization. We empirically apply our framework for finding a Pareto frontier of clustered optimal belief strengths that generalize across different contexts, demonstrating its efficacy on a toy dataset for credit decisions.Comment: ICML (International Conference on Machine Learning) Workshop on Counterfactuals in Minds and Machines, 202

Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets

Machine learning models are often used to decide who will receive a loan, a job interview, or a public benefit. Standard techniques to build these models use features about people but overlook their actionability. In turn, models can assign predictions that are fixed, meaning that consumers who are denied loans, interviews, or benefits may be permanently locked out from access to credit, employment, or assistance. In this work, we introduce a formal testing procedure to flag models that assign fixed predictions that we call recourse verification. We develop machinery to reliably determine if a given model can provide recourse to its decision subjects from a set of user-specified actionability constraints. We demonstrate how our tools can ensure recourse and adversarial robustness in real-world datasets and use them to study the infeasibility of recourse in real-world lending datasets. Our results highlight how models can inadvertently assign fixed predictions that permanently bar access, and we provide tools to design algorithms that account for actionability when developing models