diff --git a/README.qmd b/README.qmd index 0e8fd6c..394c553 100644 --- a/README.qmd +++ b/README.qmd @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ This repository contains all code, notebooks, data and empirical results for our The chart below illustrates what we define as macrodynamics in Algorithmic Recourse: (a) we have a simple linear classifier trained for binary classification where samples from the negative class ($y=0$) are marked in blue and samples of the positive class ($y=1$) are marked in orange; (b) the implementation of AR for a random subset of individuals leads to a noticable domain shift; (c) as the classifier is retrained we observe a corresponding model shift; (d) as this process is repeated, the decision boundary moves away from the target class. -![](cover.png) +![](paper/www/poc.png) ## Abstract diff --git a/_quarto.yml b/_quarto.yml index 61f6df8..80d9f6e 100644 --- a/_quarto.yml +++ b/_quarto.yml @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ format: html: theme: cosmo epub: - cover-image: cover.png + cover-image: paper/www/poc.png execute: freeze: auto diff --git a/cover.png b/cover.png deleted file mode 100644 index f81bc9f..0000000 Binary files a/cover.png and /dev/null differ diff --git a/intro.qmd b/intro.qmd index 830c0b8..30e2c65 100644 --- a/intro.qmd +++ b/intro.qmd @@ -145,6 +145,14 @@ display(plt) ## Mitigation Strategies +In the paper, we propose three simple mitigation strategies: + +1. More Conservative Decision Thresholds +2. Classifier Preserving ROAR +3. Gravitational Counterfactual Explanations + +@fig-mitigate shows an illustrative example that demonstrates the differences in counterfactual outcomes when using the various mitigation strategies compared to the baseline approach, that is, Wachter with $\gamma=0.5$: choosing a higher decision threshold pushes the counterfactual a little further into the target domain; this effect is even stronger for ClaPROAR; finally, using the Gravitational generator the counterfactual ends up all the way inside the target domain. + ```{julia} #| output: true #| label: fig-mitigate