Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification
Open accessAbstract
Classification models are often used to make decisions that affect humans: whether to approve a loan application, extend a job offer, or provide insurance. In such applications, individuals should have the ability to change the decision of the model. When a person is denied a loan by a credit scoring model, for example, they should be able to change the input variables of the model in a way that will guarantee approval. Otherwise, this person will be denied the loan so long as the model is deployed, and -- more importantly --will lack agency over a decision that affects their livelihood.
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
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?
Aguilar-Palacios et al. make use of the weighted Euclidean distance to present the forecast as a contrast to the neighbouring vectorized promotions.
“The researchers make use of the weighted Euclidean distance to present the forecast as a contrast to the neighbouring vectorized promotions.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
The other frameworks addressing the regression problem aim to leverage gradient-boosted decision trees [61] and indicate how large errors in regression tasks could be overcome [56].
“The other frameworks addressing the regression problem aim to leverage gradientboosted decision trees [61] and indicate how large errors in regression tasks could be overcome [56].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
Aguilar-Palacios et al. generate contrastive explanations using gradient boosted decision trees to forecast promotional sales [61].
“Aguilar-Palacios et al. generate contrastive explanations using gradient boosted decision trees to forecast promotional sales [61].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
Numerical counterfactual explanations can be represented in tabular form reflecting necessary changes to affect the decision.
“or in tabular form reflecting necessary changes to affect the decision [55], [56], [61],”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
A number of the frameworks are evaluated by means of accuracy-based metrics.
“A number of the frameworks are evaluated by means of accuracy-based metrics [61], [91], [94], [159].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
The consistency of output explanations is shown by measuring their accuracy on the basis of mean error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percentage error.
“The consistency of output explanations is otherwise shown by measuring their accuracy on the basis of mean error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percentage error [61].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [61]
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
UCI Machine Learning Repository
Asuncion, A. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 24,190 · see citing works
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555 · see citing works
“Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-3020 · Cited by 6,682 · see citing works
Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
Doyle, T. (2017) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2017.1354593 · Cited by 3,110 · see citing works
(2016) · Cited by 2,334 · see citing works
Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other topics that are broadly related to recourse in machine learning include: inverse classification, which aims to determine how the inputs to a model can be manipulated to obtain a desired outcome [1, 10]; strategic classification, which considers how to build classifiers that are robust to manipulation [15, 20, 21…”
Background(2011) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2011.67 · Cited by 2,038 · see citing works
Yeh, I.-C., & Lien, C.-H. (2009) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.020 · Cited by 885 · see citing works
Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIs
Tramèr, F., Zhang, F., Juels, A., Reiter, M. K., & Ristenpart, T. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.02943 · Cited by 796 · see citing works
'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173951 · Cited by 691 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Seeing how the lack of autonomy is perceived as a source of injustice in algorithmic decision-making [6, 14, 33], recourse should be considered whenever humans are subject to the predictions of a machine learning model.”
BackgroundProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Jensen, S., Boley, D. L., Gini, M. L., & Schrater, P. (2005) · Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 612 · see citing works
(2014) · Digital Commons at University of Maryland Carey Law (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law) · Cited by 524 · see citing works
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017) · doi:10.31228/osf.io/97upg · Cited by 524 · see citing works
Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation
Doshi-Velez, F., Kortz, M., Budish, R., Bavitz, C., Gershman, S. J., O'Brien, D., Scott, K., Shieber, S., Waldo, J., Weinberger, D., et al. (2017) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3064761 · Cited by 457 · see citing works
A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI
Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2018) · Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University) · doi:10.7916/cblr.v2019i2.3424 · Cited by 454 · see citing works
The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines
Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3126971 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Credit Risk Scorecards: Developing and Implementing Intelligent Credit Scoring
Siddiqi, N. (2005) · Cited by 383 · see citing works
(2013) · eYLS (Yale Law School) · Cited by 376 · see citing works
Supersparse linear integer models for optimized medical scoring systems
Ustun, B., & Rudin, C. D. (2015) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-015-5528-6 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Self-citationAnalysis of classifiers’ robustness to adversarial perturbations
Fawzi, A., Fawzi, O., & Pascal Frossard, B. (2017) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-017-5663-3 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Explaining Data-Driven Document Classifications1
Martens, D., & Provost, F. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.04 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Assessing demand for intelligibility in context-aware applications
Lim, B. Y., & Dey, A. K. (2009) · Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing · doi:10.1145/1620545.1620576 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Slave to the Algorithm? Why a Right to Explanationn is Probably Not the Remedy You are Looking for
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2972855 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Hardt, M., Megiddo, N., Papadimitriou, C. H., & Wootters, M. K. (2016) · Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.1145/2840728.2840730 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
(2018) · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
Verma, S. (2019) · Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers · doi:10.1177/0256090919853933 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Data retention and the panoptic society: the social benefits of forgetfulness
Blanchette, J.-F., & Johnson, D. G. (2002) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240252818216 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Model Reconstruction from Model Explanations
Milli, S., Schmidt, L., Dragan, A. D., & Hardt, M. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287562 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
The Social Cost of Strategic Classification
Milli, S., Miller, J. P., Dragan, A. D., & Hardt, M. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287576 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Help wanted: an examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias
Bogen, M., & Rieke, A. (2018) · Cited by 138 · see citing works
The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulation
Hu, L. J., Immorlica, N., & Vaughan, J. W. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287597 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
(2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119201731 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Economics, Fairness and Algorithmic BiasPreprint
Cowgill, B., & Tucker, C. E. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3361280 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferences
Dong, J., Roth, A., Schutzman, Z., Waggoner, B., & Wu, Z. S. (2018) · ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) · doi:10.1145/3219166.3219193 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
How Do Classifiers Induce Agents to Invest Effort Strategically?
Kleinberg, J. M., & Raghavan, M. (2019) · ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) · doi:10.1145/3328526.3329584 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
On handling indicator constraints in mixed integer programming
Belotti, P., Bonami, P., Fischetti, M., Lodi, A., Monaci, M., Nogales-Gómez, A., & Salvagnin, D. (2016) · Computational Optimization and Applications · doi:10.1007/s10589-016-9847-8 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
(2017) · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098047 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Visual explanation of evidence in additive classifiers
Poulin, B., Eisner, R., Szafron, D., Lu, P., Greiner, R., Wishart, D. S., Fyshe, A., Pearcy, B., Macdonell, C., & Anvik, J. (2006) · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Residual unfairness in fair machine learning from prejudiced data
Kallus, N., & Zhou, A. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.02887 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Grgić-Hlača, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.09548 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Exact Rule Learning via Boolean Compressed Sensing
Malioutov, D., & Varshney, K. R. (2013) · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Special ordered sets and an application to gas supply operations planning
Tomlin, J. A. (1988) · Mathematical Programming · doi:10.1007/bf01589393 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
The Inverse Classification Problem
Aggarwal, C. C., Chen, C., & Han, J. (2010) · Journal of Computer Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s11390-010-9337-x · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Ustun, B., & Rudin, C. D. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098161 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationHiring by Algorithm: Predicting and Preventing Disparate ImpactPreprint
Ajunwa, I., Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Predictive Analytics for City Agencies: Lessons from Children's Services
Shroff, R. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0052 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
10-year CVD risk prediction and minimization via InverseClassification
Chen, Y., Street, W. N., & Robinson, J. G. (2012) · doi:10.1145/2110363.2110430 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
How to reverse-engineer quality rankings
Chang, A., Rudin, C. D., Cavaretta, M. J., et al. (2012) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-012-5295-6 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
A Provable Algorithm for Learning Interpretable Scoring Systems
Sokolovska, N., Chevaleyre, Y., & Zucker, J. (2018) · Base Institutionnelle de Recherche de l'université Paris-Dauphine (BIRD) (University Paris-Dauphine) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Nambwenya, J., Solomon, A., & Le, T. V. (2014) · PDXScholar (Portland State University) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Taylor, W. F. (1980) · eYLS (Yale Law School) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Supervising Feature InfluencePreprint
Sen, S., Mardziel, P., Datta, A., & Fredrikson, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.10815 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Maximally Invariant Data Perturbation as ExplanationPreprint
Hara, S., Ikeno, K., Soma, T., et al. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.07004 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Axiomatic Characterization of Data-Driven Influence Measures for Classification
Sliwinski, J., Strobel, M., & Zick, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301718 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [7][7] Or Biran and Kathleen McKeown. 2014. Justification narratives for individual classifications. In Proceedings of the AutoML workshop at ICML , Vol. 2014. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · see citing works
Explaining Deep Neural Networks and Beyond: A Review of Methods and Applications
Samek, W., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Anders, C. J., & Muller, K.-R. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2021.3060483 · Cited by 1,477 · see citing works
“Here, an explanation could prove equally useful as it could hint at actions to be taken on the sample to improve its predicted score [189], e.”
BackgroundAI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias
Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilović, A., et al. (2019) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2019.2942287 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges
Molnar, C., Casalicchio, G., & Bischl, B. (2020) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_28 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359152 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Stepin, I., Alonso, J. M., Catala, A., & Pereira-Farina, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3051315 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations
Poyiadzi, R., Sokol, K., Santos-Rodriguez, R., De Bie, T., & Flach, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3375627.3375850 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07213 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
“, bank loans) [77];”
Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03738 · Cited by 282
Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review
Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K. E., Dickerson, J. P., & Shah, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Should ChatGPT be biased? Challenges and risks of bias in large language models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v28i11.13346 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Four principles of explainable artificial intelligence
Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Fontana, P. C., Yates, A. N., Greene, K., Broniatowski, D. A., & Przybocki, M. A. (2021) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8312 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures
Kumar, I. E., Venkatasubramanian, S., Scheidegger, C., & Friedler, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.11097 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
“Ustun et al. (2019) further specify a way to model this problem by searching for changes within characteristics which are actually mutable; they call this the “actionable recourse” problem (with a corresponding analysis by Venkatasubramanian & Alfano (2020)).”
MethodEfficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanations
Russell, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287569 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Sharma, S., Henderson, J., & Ghosh, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3375627.3375812 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Learning Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Tabular Data
Pawelczyk, M., Broelemann, K., & Kasneci, G. (2020) · Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 · doi:10.1145/3366423.3380087 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Fontana, P. C., Broniatowski, D. A., & Przybocki, M. A. (2020) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8312-draft · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Tabular Data: A Survey
Sahakyan, M., Aung, Z., & Rahwan, T. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3116481 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
“- [68] 2019 Differentiable models Alternation of actionable features.”
BackgroundMethodOn generating trustworthy counterfactual explanations
Del Ser, J., Barredo-Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Herrera, F., Saranti, A., & Holzinger, A. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119898 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Suresh, H., Gomez, S. R., Nam, K. K., & Satyanarayan, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445088 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Toward Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) in the Context of Explainability and Robustness
chander, B., John, C., Warrier, L., & Gopalakrishnan, K. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3675392 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
ViCE: visual counterfactual explanations for machine learning models
Gomez, O., Holter, S., Yuan, J., & Bertini, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3377325.3377536 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
AI, Opacity, and Personal Autonomy
Vaassen, B. (2022) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00577-5 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Transparency as design publicity: explaining and justifying inscrutable algorithms
Loi, M., Ferrario, A., & Viganò, E. (2021) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09564-w · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Yurrita, M., Draws, T., Balayn, A., Murray-Rust, D., Tintarev, N., & Bozzon, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581161 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479562 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions
Amarasinghe, K., Rodolfa, K. T., Lamba, H., & Ghani, R. (2023) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2023.2 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“Barring a few exceptions [11, 30, 44], much of the existing work has been designed and developed for benchmark classification problems with synthetic data and validated with user studies limited to users in research settings such as Amazon Mechanical Turk [3, 5, 17, 29, 32, 36, 41, 48].”
BackgroundGetting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimates
Antorán, J., Bhatt, U., Adel, T., Weller, A., & Hernández-Lobato, J. M. (2021) · Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository · doi:10.17863/cam.69929 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Bell, A., Nov, O., & Stoyanovich, J. (2023) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2023.8 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Machine Learning Explainability for External Stakeholders
Bhatt, U., Andrus, M., Weller, A., & Xiang, A. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.05408 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisions
Tamkin, A., Askell, A., Lovitt, L., Durmus, E., Joseph, N., Kravec, S., Nguyen, K., Kaplan, J., & Ganguli, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.03689 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“In response, researchers and activists have developed a range of theoretical frameworks (Dwork et al., 2012; Kusner et al., 2017; Ustun et al., 2019) as well as investigative practices (Raji & Buolamwini, 2019; Metaxa et al., 2021; Vecchione et al., 2021; Bandy, 2021), to detect and counteract such…”
BackgroundAlgorithmic monoculture and social welfare
(2023) · The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603202
Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
- Authors
- Ustun, B., Spangher, A., & Liu, Y.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-01-29
- Pages
- 10-19
- OpenAlex
- W2891340972
- Cited by
- 501
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 20.96
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- recourse, linear classification, explainable AI, fairness, algorithmic decision-making, credit scoring, lending, individual agency, model interpretability
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