No abstract

No abstract

Explainable machine learning (ML) has gained traction in recent years due to the increasing adoption of ML-based systems in many sectors. Algorithmic Recourses (ARs) provide "what if" feedback of the form "if an input datapoint were x' instead of x, then an ML-based system's output would be y' instead of y." Recourses are attractive due to their actionable feedback, amenability to existing legal frameworks, and fidelity to the underlying ML model. Yet, current recourse approaches are single shot that is, they assume x can change to x' in a single time period. We propose a novel stochastic-control-based approach that generates sequential recourses, that is, recourses that allow x to move stochastically and sequentially across intermediate states to a final state x'. Our approach is model agnostic and black box. Furthermore, the calculation of recourses is amortized such that once trained, it applies to multiple datapoints without the need for re-optimization. In addition to these primary characteristics, our approach admits optional desiderata such as adherence to the data manifold, respect for causal relations, and sparsity identified by past research as desirable properties of recourses. We evaluate our approach using three real-world datasets and show successful generation of sequential recourses that respect other recourse desiderata.

No abstract

Several recent works have highlighted how search and recommender systems exhibit bias along different dimensions. Counteracting this bias and bringing a certain amount of fairness in search is crucial to not only creating a more balanced environment that considers relevance and diversity but also providing a more sustainable way forward for both content consumers and content producers. This short paper examines some of the recent works to define relevance, diversity, and related concepts. Then, it focuses on explaining the emerging concept of fairness in various recommendation settings. In doing so, this paper presents comparisons and highlights contracts among various measures, and gaps in our conceptual and evaluative frameworks.

Symbolic execution is a powerful technique for bug finding and program testing. It is successful in finding bugs in real-world code. The core reasoning techniques use constraint solving, path exploration, and search, which are also the same techniques used in solving combinatorial problems, e.g., finitedomain constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). We propose CSP instances as more challenging benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of the core techniques in symbolic execution. We transform CSP benchmarks into C programs suitable for testing the reasoning capabilities of symbolic execution tools. From a single CSP P, we transform P depending on transformation choice into different C programs. Preliminary testing with the KLEE, Tracer-X, and LLBMC tools show substantial runtime differences from transformation and solver choice. Our C benchmarks are effective in showing the limitations of existing symbolic execution tools. The motivation for this work is we believe that benchmarks of this form can spur the development and engineering of improved core reasoning in symbolic execution engines.

No abstract

No abstract