Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01662v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:32:05 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen
• Authors: Catarina Moreira, Anna Palatkina, Dacia Braca, Dylan M. Walsh, Peter J. Leihn, Fang Chen, Nina C. Hubig,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
• Score: 2.5875936082584623
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI regulations around the world intensify their focus on system safety, contestability has become a mandatory, yet ill-defined, safeguard. In XAI, "contestability" remains an empty promise: no formal definition exists, no algorithm guarantees it, and practitioners lack concrete guidance to satisfy regulatory requirements. Grounded in a systematic literature review, this paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI, directly aligned with stakeholder requirements and regulatory mandates. We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical architectures, legal processes, and organizational workflows. To operationalize our framework, we propose the Contestability Assessment Scale, a composite metric built on more than twenty quantitative criteria. Through multiple case studies across diverse application domains, we reveal where state-of-the-art systems fall short and show how our framework drives targeted improvements. By converting contestability from regulatory theory into a practical framework, our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.

Related papers

• Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor [83.99510317617694]
  We argue that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed.<n>We aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:44:41Z)
• Towards Safety and Security Testing of Cyberphysical Power Systems by Shape Validation [42.350737545269105]
  complexity of cyberphysical power systems leads to larger attack surfaces to be exploited by malicious actors.<n>We propose to meet those risks with a declarative approach to describe cyber power systems and automatically evaluate security and safety controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T12:07:44Z)
• Watermarking Without Standards Is Not AI Governance [46.71493672772134]
  We argue that current implementations risk serving as symbolic compliance rather than delivering effective oversight.<n>We propose a three-layer framework encompassing technical standards, audit infrastructure, and enforcement mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T18:10:04Z)
• Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance [7.65321625950609]
  This paper introduces a systems-engineering-driven framework, supported by software tooling, to operationalise a dynamic approach to argument-based assurance in two stages.<n>The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through an illustrative case study in finance, with a focus on supporting fairness-related arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T21:05:33Z)
• Compliance of AI Systems [0.0]
  This paper systematically examines the compliance of AI systems with relevant legislation, focusing on the EU's AI Act.<n>The analysis highlighted many challenges associated with edge devices, which are increasingly being used to deploy AI applications closer and closer to the data sources.<n>The importance of data set compliance is highlighted as a cornerstone for ensuring the trustworthiness, transparency, and explainability of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T16:53:36Z)
• A Comprehensive Framework for Reliable Legal AI: Combining Specialized Expert Systems and Adaptive Refinement [0.0]
  Article proposes a novel framework combining expert systems with a knowledge-based architecture to improve the precision and contextual relevance of AI-driven legal services.<n>This framework utilizes specialized modules, each focusing on specific legal areas, and incorporates structured operational guidelines to enhance decision-making.<n>The proposed approach demonstrates significant improvements over existing AI models, showcasing enhanced performance in legal tasks and offering a scalable solution to provide more accessible and affordable legal services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T14:00:11Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Ethical and Scalable Automation: A Governance and Compliance Framework for Business Applications [0.0]
  This paper introduces a framework ensuring that AI must be ethical, controllable, viable, and desirable.<n>Different case studies validate this framework by integrating AI in both academic and practical environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T12:39:28Z)
• How VADER is your AI? Towards a definition of artificial intelligence systems appropriate for regulation [39.58317527488534]
  Recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI.<n>We propose a framework to score how validated as appropriately-defined for regulation (VADER) an AI definition is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T17:41:15Z)
• Towards a Responsible AI Metrics Catalogue: A Collection of Metrics for AI Accountability [28.67753149592534]
  This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T04:43:16Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Towards an Interface Description Template for AI-enabled Systems [77.34726150561087]
  Reuse is a common system architecture approach that seeks to instantiate a system architecture with existing components. There is currently no framework that guides the selection of necessary information to assess their portability to operate in a system different than the one for which the component was originally purposed. We present ongoing work on establishing an interface description template that captures the main information of an AI-enabled component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T20:30:26Z)

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.