The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making
Open accessAbstract
Governments look at explainable artificial intelligence's (XAI) potential to tackle the criticisms of the opaqueness of algorithmic decision-making with AI. Although XAI is appealing as a solution for automated decisions, the wicked nature of the challenges governments face complicates the use of XAI. Wickedness means that the facts that define a problem are ambiguous and that there is no consensus on the normative criteria for solving this problem. In such a situation, the use of algorithms can result in distrust. Whereas there is much research advancing XAI technology, the focus of this paper is on strategies for explainability. Three illustrative cases are used to show that explainable, data-driven decisions are often not perceived as objective by the public. The context might raise strong incentives to contest and distrust the explanation of AI, and as a consequence, fierce resistance from society is encountered. To overcome the inherent problems of XAI, decisions-specific strategies are proposed to lead to societal acceptance of AI-based decisions. We suggest strategies to embrace explainable decisions and processes, co-create decisions with societal actors, move away from an instrumental to an institutional approach, use competing and value-sensitive algorithms, and mobilize the tacit knowledge of professionals
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In complex public-law settings, explanations are embedded in contested legal standards, institutional purposes and discretionary judgments (de Bruijn et al., 2022;Oswald, 2018).”
From From Human Oversight to Cognitive Sovereignty: A Process-Based Governance Standard for AI-Assisted Legal Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as de Bruijn et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“De Bruijn, Warnier and Janssen (2022) show that explainable AI is not a simple cure for public-sector algorithmic decisionmaking because explanations operate within contested legal and administrative contexts.”
From From Human Oversight to Cognitive Sovereignty: A Process-Based Governance Standard for AI-Assisted Legal Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as De Bruijn, Warnier and Janssen (2022)
In the citing paper
“Explainable AI, at least in its current form, may not address the informational needs of laypeople, politicians, professionals, or scientists because the information is too technical [58].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [58]
In the citing paper
“there is very little agreement about what explainability means in practice, because what makes AI explainable depends on the context of its use [58].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [58]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415 · Cited by 9,955
On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation
Bach, S., Binder, A., Montavon, G., Klauschen, F., Müller, K.-R., & Samek, W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130140 · Cited by 4,524
Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks
Montavon, G., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2018) · Digital Signal Processing · doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2017.10.011 · Cited by 2,665
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 · Cited by 1,631
Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep taylor decomposition
Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Binder, A., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2016.11.008 · Cited by 1,357
Zhang, Y., & Wallace, B. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1510.03820 · Cited by 1,336
Techniques for interpretable machine learning
Du, M., Liu, N., & Hu, X. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3359786 · Cited by 1,268
Samek, W., Wiegand, T., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.08296 · Cited by 1,080
Friedman, B. (1996) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/242485.242493 · Cited by 966
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- LeCun, 2015, Deep learning., 521, 436
- McDonald, 2019, AI system for granting UK visas is biased, rights groups claim, The Gaurdian, 29
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2022) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714 · Cited by 356
Laux, J., Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2024) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12512 · Cited by 365
Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction
Eom, S.-J., & Lee, J. (2022) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690 · Cited by 328
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 · Cited by 228
“If we do not understand how a telescope works, then we should not trust in what we see with it.”
Examining how AI capabilities can foster organizational performance in public organizations
Mikalef, P., Lemmer, K., Schaefer, C., Ylinen, M., Fjørtoft, S. O., Torvatn, H., Gupta, M., & Niehaves, B. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101797 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- de Bruijn, H., Warnier, M., & Janssen, M.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Janssen, Marijn
- Venue
- Government Information Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101666
- ISSN
- 0740-624X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4205177168
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 66 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 15
- FWCI
- 10.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Keywords
- explainable AI, algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic transparency, public trust in AI, wicked problems, automated decision-making, government AI policy
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
