Tomu Tominaga

Tomu Tominaga, Naomi Yamashita, Takeshi Kurashima

Algorithmic recourse provides counterfactual action plans that help people overturn unfavorable AI decisions. While diverse recourse sets may improve transparency and motivation, they may also impose cognitive load and negative emotions by increasing counterfactual reasoning demands. To examine this trade-off, we conducted a between-subjects controlled experiment (N=750) that manipulated recourse-set diversity and size, and evaluated these effects on psychological benefits and costs. Results show that diversification enhances psychological benefits (e.g., willingness to act) for small sets without incurring additional psychological costs, whereas for large sets, it makes cognitive load more salient. These findings suggest that naively diversifying recourse can burden decision subjects, underscoring the need for new diversification methods that incorporate human cognition and psychology to mitigate such costs.

Tomu Tominaga, Naomi Yamashita, Takeshi Kurashima

In this study, we critically examine the foundational premise of algorithmic recourse - a process of generating counterfactual action plans (i.e., recourses) assisting individuals to reverse adverse decisions made by AI systems. The assumption underlying algorithmic recourse is that individuals accept and act on recourses that minimize the gap between their current and desired states. This assumption, however, remains empirically unverified. To address this issue, we conducted a user study with 362 participants and assessed whether minimizing the distance function, a metric of the gap between the current and desired states, indeed prompts them to accept and act upon suggested recourses. Our findings reveal a nuanced landscape: participants' acceptance of recourses did not correlate with the recourse distance. Moreover, participants' willingness to act upon recourses peaked at the minimal recourse distance but was otherwise constant. These findings cast doubt on the prevailing assumption of algorithmic recourse research and signal the need to rethink the evaluation functions to pave the way for human-centered recourse generation.