When Bits Break Recourse: Counterfactual-Faithful Quantization
About
Quantization can preserve predictive accuracy under low-bit deployment while silently breaking algorithmic recourse: an actionable change that flips a decision before quantization may fail after quantization, or become substantially more costly. We formalize counterfactual sensitivity under quantization through validity, cost, and direction stability, and introduce two metrics: Validity Drop (VD) and Counterfactual Recourse Gap (CRG) that reveal recourse failures invisible to accuracy. We propose Counterfactual-Faithful Quantization (CFQ), which trains quantizer parameters and mixed-precision bit allocation to preserve counterfactual behavior by enforcing the target outcome at teacher recourse points under a global bit budget. A margin-based analysis gives a sufficient condition for recourse transfer under bounded quantization perturbations. Experiments on Adult, German Credit, and COMPAS show that accuracy-matched baselines can significantly degrade recourse stability, while CFQ maintains accuracy and substantially improves VD and CRG across bit budgets.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification and Counterfactual Recourse | MNIST-RECOURSE | Accuracy99 | 7 | |
| Image Classification and Counterfactual Recourse | FASHION-MNIST RECOURSE | Accuracy91.4 | 7 | |
| Semantic Attribute Prediction and Counterfactual Recourse | CELEBA-ATTRIBUTES | Accuracy89.9 | 7 | |
| Counterfactual Recourse Evaluation | Adult (test) | Acc.85.7 | 6 | |
| Algorithmic Recourse | COMPAS ProPublica (test) | Accuracy68.7 | 5 | |
| Tabular Classification | COMPAS | Accuracy68.7 | 5 | |
| Algorithmic Recourse | Adult UCI (test) | Accuracy85.7 | 5 | |
| Algorithmic Recourse | GERMAN CREDIT UCI (test) | Accuracy77.1 | 5 | |
| Tabular Classification | German | Accuracy77.1 | 5 | |
| Tabular Classification | Bank | Accuracy90.4 | 5 |