"Two Means to an End Goal": Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18236v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:34:00 GMT
• Title: "Two Means to an End Goal": Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI
• Authors: Timothée Schmude, Mireia Yurrita, Kars Alfrink, Thomas Le Goff, Tiphaine Viard,
• Abstract summary: We present the findings of a semi-structured interview study with 14 interdisciplinary AI regulation experts.<n>We provide differentiations between descriptive and normative explainability, judicial and non-judicial channels of contestation, and individual and collective contestation action.<n>Our contributions include an empirically grounded conceptualization of the intersection between explainability and contestability.
• Score: 1.9556736732439064
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explainability and its emerging counterpart contestability have become important normative and design principles for the trustworthy use of AI as they enable users and subjects to understand and challenge AI decisions. However, the regulation of AI systems spans technical, legal, and organizational dimensions, producing a multiplicity in meaning that complicates the implementation of explainability and contestability. Resolving this conceptual ambiguity requires specifying and comparing the meaning of both principles across regulation dimensions, disciplines, and actors. This process, here defined as translation, is essential to provide guidance on the principles' realization. We present the findings of a semi-structured interview study with 14 interdisciplinary AI regulation experts. We report on the experts' understanding of the intersection between explainability and contestability in public AI regulation, their advice for a decision subject and a public agency in a welfare allocation AI use case, and their perspectives on the connections and gaps within the research landscape. We provide differentiations between descriptive and normative explainability, judicial and non-judicial channels of contestation, and individual and collective contestation action. We further outline three translation processes in the alignment of top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility for interpreting regulations, and the establishment of interdisciplinary collaboration. Our contributions include an empirically grounded conceptualization of the intersection between explainability and contestability and recommendations on implementing these principles in public institutions. We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems.

Related papers

• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems. Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• AI and the Transformation of Accountability and Discretion in Urban Governance [1.9152655229960793]
  The study synthesizes insights to propose guiding principles for responsible AI integration in decision-making processes.<n>The analysis argues that AI does not simply restrict or enhance discretion but redistributes it across institutional levels.<n>It may simultaneously strengthen managerial oversight, enhance decision-making consistency, and improve operational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:11:39Z)
• The explanation dialogues: an expert focus study to understand requirements towards explanations within the GDPR [47.06917254695738]
  We present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI.<n>The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain.<n>We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T15:50:02Z)
• The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview [0.0]
  This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T21:38:02Z)
• Disciplining Deliberation: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Machine Learning Trade-offs [0.0]
  Two prominent trade-offs in artificial intelligence are between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability.<n> prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values.<n>I introduce a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:03:18Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• Stronger Together: on the Articulation of Ethical Charters, Legal Tools, and Technical Documentation in ML [5.433040083728602]
  The need for accountability of the people behind AI systems can be addressed by leveraging processes in three fields of study: ethics, law, and computer science. We first contrast notions of compliance in the ethical, legal, and technical fields. We then focus on the role of values in articulating the synergies between the fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T15:35:31Z)
• Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UK [1.5039745292757671]
  We perform the first thematic and gap analysis of policies and standards on explainability in the EU, US, and UK. We find that policies are often informed by coarse notions and requirements for explanations. We propose recommendations on how to address explainability in regulations for AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T07:53:07Z)
• On the Need and Applicability of Causality for Fairness: A Unified Framework for AI Auditing and Legal Analysis [0.0]
  Article explores the significance of causal reasoning in addressing algorithmic discrimination. By reviewing landmark cases and regulatory frameworks, we illustrate the challenges inherent in proving causal claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-08T10:37:22Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.