Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Zahra Khotanlou

Publications and source records attributed to Zahra Khotanlou.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

RecourseBench: A Modular Framework for Reproducible Algorithmic Recourse Evaluation

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported claims. We introduce RecourseBench, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments: modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers---Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation---governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. Every integrated method is classified into a four-tier reproducibility taxonomy based on artifact availability, followed by a systematic verification of its core empirical claims. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven exploration across datasets, model architectures, methods, and evaluations. To our knowledge, RecourseBench is the first benchmark to explicitly ground recourse evaluation in structured claim verification and mathematically rigorous reproducibility standards, all while featuring the largest collection of state-of-the-art recourse algorithms (27 in total).

cs.AI↗

Your Recourse, My Loss? Algorithmic Recourse under Shared Constraints

Decision makers are increasingly relying on machine learning in sensitive situations. Algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable and minimally costly steps to reverse unfavorable AI-driven decisions. While existing research focuses on single-individual (i.e., seeker) and single-model (i.e., provider) scenarios, real-world applications involve multiple stakeholders. Optimizing outcomes for seekers under an individual welfare approach overlooks the multi-agent nature of real-world systems, with competition for limited resources. Accordingly, we extend algorithmic recourse to a many-to-many setting with capacity constraints, where individually computed recourse recommendations no longer compose independently and stakeholder interactions affect recourse validity. We model this multi-agent algorithimc recourse as a capacitated weighted bipartite matching problem, based on recourse cost and provider capacity. Edge weights, reflecting recourse costs, are optimized for social welfare while quantifying the welfare gap between individual welfare and this collectively feasible outcome. We propose three optimization layers: capacitated matching, optimal capacity redistribution, and cost-aware optimization. We further model inequality-averse objectives through a concave social-welfare formulation that prioritizes the most disadvantaged seekers. Experiments demonstrate that our framework enables the many-to-many algorithmic recourse to achieve near-optimal welfare with minimum modification in system settings. Our results also show how recourse systems can be designed to balance aggregate welfare with distributive considerations. We extend algorithmic recourse from individual recommendations to system-level design, providing a tractable path toward higher social welfare while maintaining individual actionability.

cs.AI↗