The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse
Abstract
As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision making (e.g., loan approvals), there has been growing interest in post hoc techniques which provide recourse to affected individuals. These techniques generate recourses under the assumption that the underlying predictive model does not change. However, in practice, models are often regularly updated for a variety of reasons (e.g., dataset shifts), thereby rendering previously prescribed recourses ineffective. To address this problem, we propose a novel framework, RObust Algorithmic Recourse (ROAR), that leverages adversarial training for finding recourses that are robust to model shifts. To the best of our knowledge, this work proposes the first solution to this critical problem. We also carry out detailed theoretical analysis which underscores the importance of constructing recourses that are robust to model shifts: 1) we derive a lower bound on the probability of invalidation of recourses generated by existing approaches which are not robust to model shifts. 2) we prove that the additional cost incurred due to the robust recourses output by our framework is bounded. Experimental evaluation on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework and supports our theoretical findings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The recourse literature has evolved significantly over the years (Karimi et al. 2022), with work investigating the robustness (Upadhyay, Joshi, and Lakkaraju 2021;König et al. 2025), fairness (Von Kügelgen et al. 2022), and privacy risks (Pawelczyk, Lakkaraju, and Neel 2023) of recourse.”
From Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability (2026) · cites this paper as Upadhyay, Joshi, and Lakkaraju 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Voigt, P., & von dem Bussche, A. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57959-7 · Cited by 3,001
Obfuscated gradients give a false sense of security: Circumventing defenses to adversarial examples
Athalye, A., Carlini, N., & Wagner, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.00420 · Cited by 2,172
Algorithmic recourse: From counterfactual explanations to interventions
Karimi, A.-H., Schölkopf, B., & Valera, I. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445899 · Cited by 274
Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shift
Rabanser, S., Günnemann, S., & Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.11953 · Cited by 204
The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse
Venkatasubramanian, S., & Alfano, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372876 · Cited by 114
Cited by
Beyond generalization: a theory of robustness in machine learning
Freiesleben, T., & Grote, T. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04334-9 · Cited by 106
Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions
Amarasinghe, K., Rodolfa, K. T., Lamba, H., & Ghani, R. (2023) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2023.2 · Cited by 73
On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse
Kügelgen, J. V., Karimi, A.-H., Bhatt, U., Valera, I., Weller, A., & Schölkopf, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i9.21192 · Cited by 58
Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
Metadata
- Authors
- Upadhyay, S., Joshi, S., & Lakkaraju, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- arXiv
- 2102.13620
- References
- 5
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2102.13620
- The paper
- Upadhyay, S., Joshi, S., & Lakkaraju, H. (2021). Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2102.13620
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.