Skip to content

RecourseBench: A Modular Framework for Reproducible Algorithmic Recourse Evaluation

Jun 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2606.16113 · 0 citations · 62 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

RecourseBench is the first benchmark to explicitly ground recourse evaluation in structured claim verification and mathematically rigorous reproducibility standards, all while featuring the largest collection of state-of-the-art recourse algorithms (27 in total).

Abstract

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported claims. We introduce RecourseBench, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments: modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers---Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation---governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. Every integrated method is classified into a four-tier reproducibility taxonomy based on artifact availability, followed by a systematic verification of its core empirical claims. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven exploration across datasets, model architectures, methods, and evaluations. To our knowledge, RecourseBench is the first benchmark to explicitly ground recourse evaluation in structured claim verification and mathematically rigorous reproducibility standards, all while featuring the largest collection of state-of-the-art recourse algorithms (27 in total).

View source

Similar papers

Open access Sep 2026

A framework for rigorous evaluation of model-agnostic explainability methods: multi-metric statistical benchmarking, operational protocol, and reproducibility

A modular benchmarking framework centered on quantitative XAI quality metrics: fidelity, stability, sparsity, computational cost, and faithfulness gap, plus an explicit method for operating the framework end-to-end is presented, plus an explicit method for operating the framework end-to-end.

Jonathan Herrera Vasquez, Miguel Herrero Uceda · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Designing an Auditable LLM-Supported Workflow for Qualitative Thematic Analysis

The findings demonstrate the feasibility of auditable LLM-supported TA through a modular workflow designed to scale to larger datasets, accommodate different LLMs, and support transfer across research domains, with domain adaptation primarily requiring adjustments to the prompting strategy.

Nadia Jul Jeldtoft, Tariq Yousef · 0 citations
Aug 2026

PeCE: A Visual Analytics Paradigm for Enhancing Counterfactual Explanations.

Counterfactual explanations offer an intuitive way to understand the prediction behavior of machine learning models. However, they still face major challenges in practice. Explanation quality is often unclear due to feature redundancy and the lack of systematic evaluation. The resulting information is fragmented and ha...

Qiang Lu, Hongfeng Wu, Sangui Jian et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.