Performative Validity of Recourse Explanations
Gunnar König, Hidde Fokkema, Timo Freiesleben, Celestine Mendler-Dünner, Ulrike Luxburg
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 explanations and causal recourse methods, and instead advocate for recourse methods that recommend actions exclusively on causal variables.