Decomposing Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decision Making

The goal of algorithmic recourse is to reverse unfavorable decisions (e.g., from loan denial to approval) under automated decision making by suggesting actionable feature changes (e.g., reduce the number of credit cards). To generate low-cost recourse the majority of methods work under the assumption that the features are independently manipulable (IMF). To address the feature dependency issue the recourse problem is usually studied through the causal recourse paradigm. However, it is well known that strong assumptions, as encoded in causal models and structural equations, hinder the applicability of these methods in complex domains where causal dependency structures are ambiguous. In this work, we develop \texttt{DEAR} (DisEntangling Algorithmic Recourse), a novel and practical recourse framework that bridges the gap between the IMF and the strong causal assumptions. \texttt{DEAR} generates recourses by disentangling the latent representation of co-varying features from a subset of promising recourse features to capture the main practical recourse desiderata. Our experiments on real-world data corroborate our theoretically motivated recourse model and highlight our framework's ability to provide reliable, low-cost recourse in the presence of feature dependencies.

[Re] Badder Seeds: Reproducing the Evaluation of Lexical Methods for Bias Measurement

Combating bias in NLP requires bias measurement. Bias measurement is almost always achieved by using lexicons of seed terms, i.e. sets of words specifying stereotypes or dimensions of interest. This reproducibility study focuses on the original authors' main claim that the rationale for the construction of these lexicons needs thorough checking before usage, as the seeds used for bias measurement can themselves exhibit biases. The study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of the quantitative and qualitative results presented in the paper and the conclusions drawn thereof. We reproduce most of the results supporting the original authors' general claim: seed sets often suffer from biases that affect their performance as a baseline for bias metrics. Generally, our results mirror the original paper's. They are slightly different on select occasions, but not in ways that undermine the paper's general intent to show the fragility of seed sets.