Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces recourse under competition, a framework that accounts for the endogenous shift in acceptance thresholds caused by widespread recourse implementation in competitive resource allocation scenarios. By jointly optimizing for recommendation recipients and a recommended score target, the approach aims to maintain the validity of recourse recommendations despite the changing decision boundary. Experiments reveal that personalized score targets can achieve higher validity at increased cost, while common score targets offer better cost-validity trade-offs for lower validity requirements.
Following recourse can backfire by shifting acceptance thresholds, rendering original recommendations invalid in competitive settings.
Algorithmic recourse provides individuals who have received undesirable outcomes from machine learning models with suggestions for minimum-cost improvements to achieve the desired outcome. A central assumption when computing recourse is that the decision rule remains fixed throughout the recourse implementation phase. We challenge this assumption in settings where individuals compete for limited resources. In such settings, widespread recourse implementation can change the acceptance threshold even when the scoring model that is used to evaluate individuals remains the same. This change in acceptance threshold can, in turn, invalidate the original recourse recommendations (i.e., following the recourse may not lead to the desired outcome). To address this problem, we introduce a framework called recourse under competition that jointly optimizes for recommendation recipients and the recommended score target they need to satisfy to balance the recourse cost and post-shift validity among initially rejected individuals. We develop an algorithm based on the Implicit Function Theorem and empirically analyze its performance. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets show that personalized score targets can achieve higher validity, albeit at a higher cost. In contrast, common score targets generally offer favorable cost-validity trade-offs for lower to medium validity values.