Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16041v1
• Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 15:14:13 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
• Abstract summary: We propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse.<n>We identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards.<n>We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable.
• Score: 3.135152720206845
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

Related papers

• Counterfactual Explanations and the Scope of Contestability [0.0]
  This paper is about how agency can be reinstated by the provision of certain kinds of knowledge.<n>We discuss whether a specific type of explanation, counterfactual explanations, facilitates our ability to contest algorithmic decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T13:45:16Z)
• Learning the Boundary of Solvability: Aligning LLMs to Detect Unsolvable Problems [51.62477754641947]
  We propose UnsolvableQA and UnsolvableRL to solve feasible problems, detect inherent contradictions, and prudently refuse tasks beyond capability.<n>Specifically, we construct UnsolvableQA, a dataset of paired solvable and unsolvable instances derived via a dual-track methodology.<n>Building on this dataset, we introduce UnsolvableRL, a reinforcement learning framework with three reward components jointly accounting for accuracy, unsolvability, and difficulty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T13:32:59Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Am I Being Treated Fairly? A Conceptual Framework for Individuals to Ascertain Fairness [0.7783262415147651]
  We argue for the reification of fairness as a property of Automatic Decision Making (ADM) systems.<n>We propose a conceptual framework to ascertain fairness by combining different tools that empower the end-users of ADM systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T10:28:19Z)
• Teaching AI to Handle Exceptions: Supervised Fine-Tuning with Human-Aligned Judgment [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are evolving into agentic AI systems, but their decision-making processes remain poorly understood.<n>We show that even LLMs that excel at reasoning deviate significantly from human judgments because they adhere strictly to policies.<n>We then evaluate three approaches to tuning AI agents to handle exceptions: ethical framework prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, and supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T20:00:37Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• The Conflict Between Explainable and Accountable Decision-Making Algorithms [10.64167691614925]
  Decision-making algorithms are being used in important decisions, such as who should be enrolled in health care programs and be hired. XAI initiative aims to make algorithms explainable to comply with legal requirements, promote trust, and maintain accountability. This paper questions whether and to what extent explainability can help solve the responsibility issues posed by autonomous AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T07:19:28Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Legal perspective on possible fairness measures - A legal discussion using the example of hiring decisions (preprint) [0.0]
  We explain the different kinds of fairness concepts that might be applicable for the specific application of hiring decisions. We analyze their pros and cons with regard to the respective fairness interpretation and evaluate them from a legal perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T06:41:39Z)

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.