Contestable Black Boxes
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Henin and Le Métayer's technical framework for contestability is difficult to implement in practice because it requires a complete logical specification of decision norms and an ordering relation over argument strengths.
“While their idea of building upon norms and justifications is conceptually sound (Aler Tubella et al. 2020), their technical framework is difficult to implement in practice: it requires a complete logical specification of decision norms as well as an ordering relation over argument strengths.”
From Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability (2026) · cites this paper as Aler Tubella et al. 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Translating Values into Design Requirements
van de Poel, I. (2013) · Philosophy of Engineering and Technology · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7762-0_20 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Kroll, J. A. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0084 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- [1]1. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. IEEE Std 830-1998 pp. 1-40 (10 1998)
- [2]2. Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F., Garc´ ıa-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodr´ ıguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Operationalisation of Norms for Electronic Institutions. In: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II, vol. 4386 LNAI, pp. 163-176. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007)
- [3]3. Bryson, J.J., Theodorou, A.: How Society Can Maintain Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence. In: M., T., E., S. (eds.) Human-Centered Digitalization and Services, pp. 305-323 (2019)
- [5]5. Citron, D.K., Pasquale, F.: The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review 89 (1), 1-33 (2014)
- [6]6. Crawford, K., Schultz, J.: Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms. Boston College Law Review. Boston College. Law School 55 (1), 93 (2013)
- [7]7. De Vos, M., Kirrane, S., Padget, J., Satoh, K.: ODRL policy modelling and compliance checking. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 11784 LNCS, pp. 36-51. Springer (2019)
- [8]8. Dignum, V.: Responsible artificial intelligence : how to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer (2019)
- [9]9. Governatori, G., Hashmi, M., Lam, H.P., Villata, S., Palmirani, M.: Semantic business process regulatory compliance checking using LegalRuleML. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 10024 LNAI, pp. 746-761. Springer Verlag (2016)
- [10]10. Jensen, A.S., Dignum, V., Villadsen, J.: The AORTA architecture: Integrating organizational reasoning in Jason. In: International Workshop on Engineering MultiAgent Systems, pp. 127-145. Springer (2014)
- [11]11. King, T.C., De Vos, M., Dignum, V., Jonker, C.M., Li, T., Padget, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Automated multi-level governance compliance checking. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 31 (6), 1283-1343 (2017)
- [13]13. Michael, L., Parkes, D.C., Pfeffer, A.: Specifying and monitoring economic environments using rights and obligations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 20 (2), 158-197 (2010)
- [15]15. Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M.: A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS. vol. 1, pp. 126-133 (2009)
- [17]17. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C.: Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 31 , 841 (2017)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Contestable AI by Design: Towards a Framework
Alfrink, K., Keller, I., Kortuem, G., & Doorn, N. (2022) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-022-09611-z · Cited by 104 · see citing works
“These would protect against undesired actions, and demonstrate compliance with standards and legislation (Aler Tubella et al., 2020).”
InfluentialExplainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
- Authors
- Aler Tubella, A., Theodorou, A., Dignum, V., & Michael, L.
- Affiliations
- Umeå University (SE)
- Open University of Cyprus (CY)
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 159-167
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W3034229715
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Kypseli (submittedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission (825619, 823783, 739578)
- Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- contestability, automated decision-making, algorithmic black box, GDPR, explainability, right to explanation, rule-based methods, democratic rights, algorithmic accountability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
