Performative Validity of Recourse Explanations

When applicants get rejected by a high-stakes algorithmic decision system, recourse explanations provide actionable suggestions for applicants on how to change their input features to get a positive evaluation. A crucial yet overlooked phenomenon is that recourse explanations are performative: When many applicants act according to their recommendations, their collective behavior may shift the data distribution and, once the model is refitted, also the decision boundary. Consequently, the recourse algorithm may render its own recommendations invalid, such that applicants who make the effort of implementing their recommendations may be rejected again when they reapply. In this work, we formally characterize the conditions under which recourse explanations remain valid under their own performative effects. In particular, we prove that recourse actions may become invalid if they are influenced by or if they intervene on non-causal variables. Based on this analysis, we caution against the use of standard counterfactual explanation and causal recourse methods, and instead advocate for recourse methods that recommend actions exclusively on causal variables.

Theorem 5.2 (Two Sources of Invalidity). Consider the retrained post-recourse model L m of Eq. (1) and assume there are no unobserved confounders. Then there exist only two potential sources of performative invalidity: