arXiv:2609.39877v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Algorithmic recourse provides individuals who have received undesirable outcomes from machine learning models with suggestions for minimum-cost impro...
By Shahin Jabbari
arXiv:2608. 04677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic recourse seeks to help individuals reverse unfavorable automated decisions by recommending actionable changes that achieve a desired outcome.
By Anagha Sabu, Hrithik Suresh, Narayanan C. Krishnan
arXiv:2607. 28497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable changes to improve their predicted outcomes in high-stakes classification settings, such as loan and mortgage applications.
By Srikanth Avasarala, Varun Gupta, Shahin Jabbari, Saber Salehkaleybar, Juba Ziani
The study examines a two‑agent résumé screening process where both employer‑side and candidate‑side agents exchange evidence before deciding who advances, contrasting it with the traditional one‑call automated screening. Using GPT‑5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 on 600 constructed résumé‑job pairs, the two‑agent method increased the proportion of applications advanced (up to 39.3% for GPT‑5.5) and raised pass rates for borderline cases from 4.5% to 26.2% (GPT‑5.5) and 6.5% to 16.1% (Opus 4.7). The results show that the screening procedure itself, rather than just the underlying model, determines which candidates reach human review and how consistently that access recurs.
By Jian Gao, Hang Jiang
The paper examines how an agent’s probability report is evaluated twice—once by a strictly proper scoring rule and again by an approval rule that determines a decision. It shows that when the approval rule is welfare‑maximizing, it cannot be affine, yet the resulting distortion is predictable and can be mitigated by a reserve report that neutralizes the cost of pretending to be the marginal type. A Lipschitz rule with a single kink achieves first‑best welfare, while smooth rules cannot, and the key constraint is the steepness of the rule rather than its smoothness.
By Lauri Lov\'en, Sasu Tarkoma
The paper argues that traditional probabilistic fairness metrics can miss significant disparities in the actual consequences of decisions. By introducing a utility-based framework, the authors show that a process can satisfy ε-fairness yet still be maximally unfair when utilities are considered. They apply this framework to college admissions and credit‑risk assessment, demonstrating that equalizing probabilities alone may mask unequal utility outcomes across groups.
By Tolulope Fadina, Thorsten Schmidt