Keywords: Counterfactual Explanations, Algorihtmic Recourse, Explainability, Interpretability, Transparency
TL;DR: We analyze the tradeoff between actionable explanations and the right to be forgotten, and provide algorithms to find a critical subset of training data points, which, when removed would lead to a maximum invalidation of recourses.
Abstract: As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications, policymakers have suggested tighter data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). One key principle is the “right to be forgotten” which gives users the right to have their data deleted. Another key principle is the right to an actionable explanation, also known as algorithmic recourse, allowing users to reverse unfavorable decisions. To date, it is unknown whether these two principles can be operationalized simultaneously. Therefore, we introduce and study the problem of recourse invalidation in the context of data deletion requests. More specifically, we theoretically and empirically analyze the behavior of popular state-of-the-art algorithms and demonstrate that the recourses generated by these algorithms are likely to be invalidated if a small number of data deletion requests (e.g., 1 or 2) warrant updates of the predictive model. For the setting of differentiable models, we suggest a framework to identify a minimal subset of critical training points which, when removed, maximize the fraction of invalidated recourses.Using our framework, we empirically show that the removal of as little as 2 data instances from the training set can invalidate up to 95 percent of all recourses output by popular state-of-the-art algorithms. Thus, our work raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of ``the right to an actionable explanation'' in the context of the ``right to be forgotten'', while also providing constructive insights on the determining factors of recourse robustness.
Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
Supplementary Material: zip
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics
Submission Guidelines: Yes
Please Choose The Closest Area That Your Submission Falls Into: Social Aspects of Machine Learning (eg, AI safety, fairness, privacy, interpretability, human-AI interaction, ethics)