Feature Responsiveness Scores: Model-Agnostic Explanations for Recourse
Machine learning models routinely automate decisions in applications like lending and hiring. In such settings, consumer protection rules require companies that deploy models to explain predictions to decision subjects. These rules are motivated, in part, by the belief that explanations can promote recourse by revealing information that individuals can use to contest or improve their outcomes. In practice, many companies comply with these rules by providing individuals with a list of the most important features for their prediction, which they identify based on feature importance scores from feature attribution methods such as SHAP or LIME. In this work, we show how these practices can undermine consumers by highlighting features that would not lead to an improved outcome and by explaining predictions that cannot be changed. We propose to address these issues by highlighting features based on their responsiveness score -- i.e., the probability that an individual can attain a target prediction by changing a specific feature. We develop efficient methods to compute responsiveness scores for any model and any dataset. We conduct an extensive empirical study on the responsiveness of explanations in lending. Our results show that standard practices in consumer finance can backfire by presenting consumers with reasons without recourse, and demonstrate how our approach improves consumer protection by highlighting responsive features and identifying fixed predictions.
Code (2)
Tasks
Feature ImportanceMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets
Machine learning models are often used to decide who receives a loan, a job interview, or a public benefit. Models in such settings use features without considering their actionability. As a result, they can assign predi…
Adversarial RobustnessPredictionCARE: Coherent Actionable Recourse based on Sound Counterfactual Explanations
Counterfactual explanation methods interpret the outputs of a machine learning model in the form of "what-if scenarios" without compromising the fidelity-interpretability trade-off. They explain how to obtain a desired p…
counterfactualCounterfactual ExplanationExplainable artificial intelligencetabular-classificationFLEX: Feature Importance from Layered Counterfactual Explanations
Machine learning models achieve state-of-the-art performance across domains, yet their lack of interpretability limits safe deployment in high-stakes settings. Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide actio…
severity predictionFeature ImportancePerformative Validity of Recourse Explanations
When applicants get rejected by an algorithmic decision system, recourse explanations provide actionable suggestions for how to change their input features to get a positive evaluation. A crucial yet overlooked phenomeno…
counterfactualvalidTraCE: Trajectory Counterfactual Explanation Scores
Counterfactual explanations, and their associated algorithmic recourse, are typically leveraged to understand, explain, and potentially alter a prediction coming from a black-box classifier. In this paper, we propose to …
counterfactualCounterfactual ExplanationDecision MakingSequential Decision Making