Abstract:Algorithmic recourse -- providing recommendations to those affected negatively by the outcome of an algorithmic system on how they can take action and change that outcome -- has gained attention as a means of giving persons agency in their interactions with artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Recent work has shown that even if an AI decision-making classifier is ``fair'' (according to some reasonable criteria), recourse itself may be unfair due to differences in the initial circumstances of individuals, compounding disparities for marginalized populations and requiring them to exert more effort than others. There is a need to define more methods and metrics for evaluating fairness in recourse that span a range of normative views of the world, and specifically those that take into account time. Time is a critical element in recourse because the longer it takes an individual to act, the more the setting may change due to model or data drift.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the unfairness issue in algorithmic recourse. Specifically, even if an AI decision - making system itself is considered "fair" (according to some reasonable criteria), the remedial measures themselves may become unfair due to differences in individuals' initial situations, thereby exacerbating the inequality of marginalized groups. The author points out that this unfairness is especially reflected in the effort and time required for different groups to change unfavorable results. ### Main problems of the paper 1. **Unfairness of algorithmic recourse**: Even if the decision classifier is fair, the remedial mechanism itself may be unfair because differences in the initial conditions of different individuals will cause them to need to make different efforts to change unfavorable results. 2. **Impact of time and effort**: Existing research ignores the impact of time and effort on the fairness of algorithmic recourse. In particular, over time, changes in the model or data may weaken the effectiveness of remedial suggestions. 3. **Insufficient methods for measuring and improving fairness**: Currently, there is a lack of effective methods and indicators to evaluate and improve the fairness of algorithmic recourse, especially when considering time and effort. ### Solutions To fill this research gap, the paper proposes two new fairness concepts, aiming to be consistent with substantive equality of opportunity and taking into account the factors of time and effort: 1. **Effort - to - Recourse (ETR)**: Measures the effort made by an individual in the process of successfully obtaining recourse. The formula is as follows: \[ ETR_t(P)=\frac{1}{|D_t(P)|}\sum_{x\in D_t(P)}C_t(x) \] where \(D_t(P)\) is the set of individuals who successfully obtain recourse at time \(t\), and \(C_t(x)\) represents the total effort made by individual \(x\) before time \(t\). 2. **Time - to - Recourse (TTR)**: Measures the average number of time steps required for an individual to successfully obtain recourse. The formula is as follows: \[ TTR_t(P)=\frac{1}{|R_t(P)|}\sum_{x\in R_t(P)}\delta(x) \] where \(R_t(P)\) is the set of individuals who successfully obtain recourse at time \(t\), and \(\delta(x)\) represents the number of time steps from when individual \(x\) receives a negative result to when they successfully obtain recourse. ### Intervention measures The paper also proposes an intervention measure named "Circumstance - Normalized Selection (CNS)" to improve the fairness of algorithmic recourse. CNS reduces cross - group unfairness by proportionally allocating positive results to high - scoring individuals in each sub - group, ensuring that the competition within each sub - group is carried out internally. ### Summary The main contribution of this paper lies in introducing two new fairness measurement indicators (ETR and TTR), and demonstrating the unfairness among different groups of these indicators through simulation experiments. In addition, the paper proposes a new intervention measure (CNS) and verifies its effectiveness in experiments.

Fairness in Algorithmic Recourse Through the Lens of Substantive Equality of Opportunity

Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

Towards Substantive Conceptions of Algorithmic Fairness: Normative Guidance from Equal Opportunity Doctrines

A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

Fairness Deconstructed: A Sociotechnical View of 'Fair' Algorithms in Criminal Justice

Fair Enough? A map of the current limitations of the requirements to have fair algorithms

Dimensions of Diversity in Human Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches

On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learning

How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness

Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature

Systemic Fairness

Emergent Unfairness in Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Off Research

Algorithmic Fairness with Feedback

Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy

15 Years of Algorithmic Fairness -- Scoping Review of Interdisciplinary Developments in the Field

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

Subjective fairness in algorithmic decision-support