POROS (Peer-Grounded Optimal Routes Over States), a domain-agnostic framework rooted in Bandura's self-efficacy theory and Festinger's social comparison theory that constructs a Behavioral Progression Graph, reduces the mean gain required per step and embeds social comparison by construction on two independent longitudinal cohorts of patients with diabetes.
Abstract
Effective behavioral intervention in chronic disease management requires not a single prescription but a sequence of incremental steps, each grounded in what real, similar individuals have demonstrably achieved. Counterfactual explanation offers a natural computational route to such guidance, answering what change in behavior would have produced a better outcome. But existing methods return a target state without a route to it, guarantee no monotone health improvement along the way, and draw no evidence from peer behavior -- asking a patient to close a wide gap in one move, which is precisely the recommendation structure least likely to be attempted. We propose POROS (Peer-Grounded Optimal Routes Over States), a domain-agnostic framework rooted in Bandura's self-efficacy theory and Festinger's social comparison theory that constructs a Behavioral Progression Graph -- a directed acyclic graph over observed patient states in which every edge requires both peer-grounded behavioral proximity and strict health outcome improvement. Every edge is therefore a behavioral change that individuals in the cohort have demonstrated is achievable within a single period. Minimum-cost paths through this graph decompose otherwise inactionable behavioral gaps into incremental, peer-grounded steps. We evaluate POROS on two independent longitudinal cohorts of patients with diabetes. For patients below the 70% clinical threshold for time in range (TIR, blood glucose within 70-180 mg/dL), it reduces the mean gain required per step from 26.3 percentage points (pp) to 5.5 pp on one cohort and from 31.1 pp to 5.7 pp on the other, decomposing large behavioral jumps into the incremental steps that self-efficacy requires. Across both cohorts, 97-98% of multi-hop paths cross patient boundaries, embedding social comparison by construction.
Most data-driven policy learning methods maximize average outcomes, overlooking the possibility that a policy beneficial on average may still harm a substantial fraction of individuals. Motivated by the ethical principle of"first do no harm", we study how to design a change from a baseline policy that improves overall...
Martina Scauda, Tobias Freidling, Qingyuan Zhao· 0 citations
This work reframe counterfactual explanation as an intervention design problem, and generates counterfactuals via a greedy search that directly identifies minimal, actionable changes to node features and neighbor-level conditions that are converted into interpretable rules suitable for real-world intervention.
A central goal when designing treatment policies is often to"do no harm", that is, to avoid interventions that improve average outcomes while worsening outcomes for some individuals. A widely used notion for harm is the fraction of negatively affected (FNA), defined as the probability that an intervention decreases an...
Rui-Zi Yan, Dennis Frauen, Maresa Schröder et al.· 0 citations
Patient preference, defined as a patient's demonstrated willingness and capacity to adhere to clinical recommendations, is a primary determinant of therapeutic effect yet remains structurally absent from existing computational treatment planning models. We address this gap by presenting patient-centered factored-action...
Nafiseh Payani, Soham Das, G. A. Wilson et al.· 0 citations
Epidemic intervention policies are textual artefacts that human decision-makers interpret, justify, and revise through natural language, making large language models a natural candidate for epidemic policy reasoning. A naive LLM, however, lacks the epidemic dynamics needed to project intervention consequences, the quan...
Zeeshan Memon, Yi-Qi Su, Kai Shu et al.· 0 citations
Counterfactual simulation with a clinical world model means fixing a patient's history, changing the treatment, and reading off the predicted response. Doing so requires deciding what counts as one intervention. In clinical settings, interventions are documented as bundles: a co-occurrence audit of 945,707 patient-hour...
Fang Wang, Yi-Xuan Yang, Camilla Balzarotti et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 28, 2026
Professor Paris Smaragdis develops computers with superhuman hearing for applications like speech recognition, music understanding, and environmental monitoring.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 27, 2026
Prabha Jha used her experience with MIT Open Learning’s program for senior executives to develop AI solutions for her employer, Verizon, and to write a book.
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.