Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Open accessAbstract
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.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper argues that standard XAI explanations—counterfactuals, LIME, and Anchors—can at best reveal errors “somewhere” near an individual’s case, not sufficient grounds to overturn the specific decision. It proposes algorithmic contestability as the counterpart to recourse and identifies predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence as evidence that can warrant reversal under the decision maker’s own ethical standards.
Key findings
- The paper introduces four levels of contestability—normative, epistemic, somewhere contestability, and somewhere inaccuracy—and argues that XAI explanations, even combined with human intuitions, reach only the lowest two levels.
- It identifies three types of evidence sufficient for stronger contestation: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence.
- Theorem 4 gives a lower bound θ on the probability that a decision is epistemically contestable under predictive multiplicity, estimated as the minimum of the proportions of positive and negative decisions in a Rashomon set.
- The paper argues that existing EU law, especially Article 22 GDPR, may already grant individuals rights connected to these forms of evidence, though the right to contest remains “barely articulated.”
Methods
- Conceptual and normative analysis: the paper formalizes algorithmic decision-making, defines normative and epistemic contestability, and proves six theorems about when XAI explanations and other evidence support contestation.
- No empirical dataset or sample is used; the work is theoretical, with proofs and counterexamples placed in the appendix of the extended version.
- Legal analysis: it examines how the proposed evidence types relate to the GDPR, particularly Article 22 and related provisions on automated decision-making.
Limitations
- The paper states that it focuses on epistemic grounds for contestation and deliberately sets aside ethical reasons such as societal bias or discrimination.
- It states that its setup assumes aligned interests between individuals and decision makers, leaving adversarial contexts and questions of who provides or mediates evidence for future work.
- It states that its analysis is confined to a subset of human intuitions and XAI explanations, and that overruling evidence is difficult to implement in practice; the text also makes evident that the formal results rely on assumptions such as correct intuitions, no measurement error, and Bayes-optimal models.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
39 of 78 cited sources checked · 17 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Only very few technical works address contestability in greater detail.
“only very few technical works address contestability in greater detail (Mansi, Karusala, and Riedl 2025).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Mansi, Karusala, and Riedl 2025 source
The paper addresses contestability in detail: Section 2 (p. 2) discusses barriers to contesting AI decisions, and the Conclusions (p. 6) describe design opportunities for making AI systems contestable. It therefore serves as an example of a work addressing the topic, but our copy does not establish that only very few technical works do so. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Algorithmic contestability remains under-researched, especially from a technical perspective.
“It is widely agreed that algorithmic contestability remains under-researched, especially from a technical perspective (Lyons, Velloso, and Miller 2021;Alfrink et al. 2023;Maxwell and Dumas 2023;Yurrita et al. 2025).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Lyons, Velloso, and Miller 2021 source
- cites Alfrink et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Maxwell and Dumas 2023 source
Section 4.4 (p. 35) says AI explainability techniques are still in their infancy and general guidelines have yet to emerge. Section 2.4 (p. 17) identifies explanations used to challenge decisions as a form of contestability, but the paper does not say that contestability itself is under-researched, particularly from a technical perspective. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Interpretationreasoning
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.
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“We show that common XAI methods, such as counterfactual explanations (Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell 2017), Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) (Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2016), and Anchors (Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2018), are of limited value for algorithmic contestability.”
- Also stated in: § However, it remains unclear · hedged
“In the following, we show that a conflict between human intuitions and XAI explanations-even in the best-case scenario where those intuitions are correct-supports at most an inference to an error somewhere.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell 2017 source
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2016 source
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2018 source
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
- Premisecitation
New evidence can only increase, and never decrease, expected utility when the cost of information is negligible.
“This principle has strong normative support: it has been shown that new evidence can only increase, and never decrease, expected utility when the cost of information is negligible (Taroni et al. 2024;Schurz 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Taroni et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Schurz 2024 source
- Premisereasoning
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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
- Premisecitation
Model selection is influenced by conventional choices such as learning rate and arbitrary choices such as random seeds.
“In addition to such intentional choices, model selection is also influenced by conventional choices, such as the selection of a learning rate, or arbitrary choices, such as the selection of random seeds (Ganesh, Taik, and Farnadi 2025;Cavus, Woźnica, and Biecek 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Ganesh, Taik, and Farnadi 2025 source
- cites Cavus, Woźnica, and Biecek 2025 source
The Introduction (p. 2) says choices of hyperparameters, including learning rates, can affect model predictions, and that randomness during training contributes to predictive multiplicity. It does not identify random-seed selection as an arbitrary choice or establish its effect on model selection (searched: random seeds, seed). (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Continuity rules are widely adopted, including in fairness, because humans generally expect decisions to be made consistently.
“Such rules are widely adopted, including in the context of fairness (Kusner et al. 2017), as humans generally expect decisions to be made consistently (Kolodner 2014;Selbst and Barocas 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Kusner et al. 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Kolodner 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Selbst and Barocas 2018 source
- Premisecitation
Monotonicity rules are widely adopted because humans expect decisions to be affected by feature changes in a consistent direction.
“Such rules are widely adopted, as humans expect decisions to be affected by feature changes in a consistent direction (Birnbaum 2019;Selbst and Barocas 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Birnbaum 2019 source
- cites Selbst and Barocas 2018 source
In “Interpretability in Machine Learning,” the paper says monotonicity constraints are widespread in credit scoring because they make score changes easier to reason about and help creditors generate legally required reason codes. In “Inscrutable,” it says consistent-direction changes aid human understanding. It does not say monotonicity rules are widely adopted generally because humans expect decisions to behave that way. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Individual conditional expectation curves and prediction gradients also allow for the detection of somewhere inaccuracies.
“Other, more direct, explanation methods for detecting monotonicity conflicts include individual conditional expectation curves (Goldstein et al. 2015) or prediction gradients (Wang et al. 2024), both of which also allow for the detection of somewhere inaccuracies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Goldstein et al. 2015 source
- cites Wang et al. 2024 source
Section 2.2, “Vanilla Gradients based Explanation” (page unavailable), says prediction gradients show how predictions respond to infinitesimal input changes, supporting their use to examine local monotonicity. The reviewed passages do not say that gradients detect “somewhere inaccuracies,” so that additional capability is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
The CJEU judgment did not address whether a person can test the system.
“However, the judgment did not address whether a person can “test the system” (Stewart 2026).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Stewart 2026 source
- Interpretationcitation
If some Rashomon models predict positive and others negative for an individual, this provides a meaningful basis for contesting the decision.
“If some predictions are positive while others are negative, this provides a meaningful basis for contesting the decision, as argued by Black, Raghavan, and Barocas (2022) and formalized in the following theorem.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Black, Raghavan, and Barocas 2022 source
- Premisecitation
In aligned situations, contestability consistently leads to better decisions.
“Such situations are ideal, as contestability then consistently leads to better decisions (Cohen et al. 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Cohen et al. 2023 source
In “The case for human appeals of medical AI/ML decisions” (page unavailable), the paper says appeals may reveal overlooked information and improve an AI system. It describes appeals as particularly useful when parties’ incentives are not clearly aligned. The “Best of both worlds” section (page unavailable) makes improved outcomes conditional on proper design; neither section supports the claim that contestability consistently produces better decisions in aligned situations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Most methods generate counterfactuals heuristically and therefore produce close rather than closest counterfactuals.
“While the original formulation of counterfactuals byWachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell (2017) requires the counterfactual to be the closest input across the decision boundary, most methods generate counterfactuals heuristically, e.g. using evolutionary algorithms(Dandl et al. 2020), and therefore produce close rather than closest counterfactuals.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell (2017) source
The cited paper describes the closest possible world as an ideal (Section II.A, p. 9) and seeks a counterfactual as close to the original input as possible (Section III, p. 16). It does not require the mathematically closest input: it accepts a sufficiently close solution and says diverse nearby counterfactuals may be more informative (pp. 9, 16). The sentence’s separate claim about most methods using heuristics is not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Dandl et al. 2020 source
Section 4.2, “Counterfactual Search” (page unavailable), confirms that Dandl et al. use an evolutionary algorithm to generate counterfactuals, supporting the cited example. The paper does not establish that most methods are heuristic or explicitly conclude that they produce close rather than closest counterfactuals. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
For purposes of contestability, maximal proximity is less essential than it is for recourse.
“For purposes of contestability, maximal proximity is less essential than it is for recourse(Venkatasubramanian and Alfano 2020;Freiesleben 2022).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Venkatasubramanian and Alfano 2020 source
Section 2 says counterfactual explanations can provide information for contesting decisions and exercising recourse; §3.1 distinguishes appeal from recourse, and §4.6 discusses the least burdensome option for recourse. These passages support a distinction between the purposes, but they do not say that maximal proximity is less essential for contestability than for recourse. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Freiesleben 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingreasoning
XAI explanations may conflict with human intuitions.
“XAI explanations may conflict with human intuitions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Conflicts between XAI explanations and human intuitions imply an error only somewhere in the neighborhood of the explained observation and thus insufficient grounds to overturn the decision at hand.
“Even under the strong assumption that these intuitions are correct, i.e. the rules apply, such conflicts imply an error only somewhere in the neighborhood of the explained observation and thus insufficient grounds to overturn the decision at hand.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
A decision may remain epistemically correct relative to feature set X but no longer be epistemically correct once additional features are considered.
“In such cases, a decision may remain epistemically correct relative to the feature set X, but it is no longer epistemically correct once the additional features are considered.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Decisions based on predictions require decision makers to accept a certain inductive risk.
“Decisions based on such predictions therefore require decision makers to accept a certain inductive risk (Douglas 2000).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Douglas 2000 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Most predictive models exhibit errors somewhere, leaving it largely indeterminate whether the specific decision at hand ought to be overturned.
“Although errors somewhere in the neighborhood are a necessary condition for epistemically incorrect decisions and may thus serve as a starting point for algorithmic contestation, they provide only a very weak signal: most predictive models exhibit errors somewhere, leaving it largely indeterminate whether the specific decision at hand ought to be overturned.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Contesting a decision by means of overruling evidence is often the closest we can get to normative contestability, since the property of interest Y is typically unobservable.
“Contesting a decision by means of overruling evidence is often the closest we can get to normative contestability, since the property of interest Y is typically unobservable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If the continuity rule applies to the individual and her counterfactual, and their distance is smaller than ε according to the distance function, the decision is somewhere contestable.
“Theorem 1.If the continuity rule applies to the individual and her counterfactual, and their distance is smaller than ϵ according to ∥ • ∥, the decision is somewhere contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The continuity rule applies to the individual and her counterfactual, and their distance is smaller than ε according to the distance function.
- Interpretationreasoning
Contestation based on XAI explanations, predictive multiplicity, or incorrect feature values targets correctness within a fixed feature set X and aims to establish epistemic contestability relative to X.
“Contestation based on XAI explanations, predictive multiplicity, or incorrect feature values all target the correctness of estimations or measurements within a fixed feature set X and aim to establish epistemic contestability relative to X.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
Algorithmic contestability has received far less attention than algorithmic recourse, despite its central ethical and legal importance.
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“While the literature on algorithmic recourse has become a cornerstone of XAI research, with both solid conceptual as well as algorithmic foundations (Ustun, Spangher, and Liu 2019;Venkatasubramanian and Alfano 2020;König, Freiesleben, and Grosse-Wentrup 2023), the literature on algorithmic contestability has remained comparatively underexplored.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
- Interpretationreasoning
Unless the decision maker has good reason to regard the selected model as superior, predictive multiplicity yields a lower bound on the probability that a decision is epistemically contestable.
“The theorem shows that, unless the decision maker has good reason to regard the selected model as superior, predictive multiplicity yields a lower bound on the probability that a decision is epistemically contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
Discontinuities in decisions can be justified when similar individuals differ on a legally relevant feature such as age (17 vs 18) in lending.
“However, discontinuities can be justified.Consider two highly similar loan applicants, where one is 17 and the other is 18 years old.Granting the loan to the latter but not the former is justified, as they differ in legal capability, which is relevant in lending contexts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Normatively incorrect decisions may still be made even if the resulting decision closely approximates the epistemically correct one, even for optimal classifiers.
“While these features are carefully chosen, normatively incorrect decisions may still be made, even if the resulting decision closely approximates the epistemically correct one-even for optimal classifiers (Hastie et al. 2009).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hastie et al. 2009 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Counterfactual explanations do not render the decision in question epistemically contestable.
“they do not render the decision in question epistemically contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Accepting inductive risk entails accepting the possibility of normatively incorrect decisions.
“Accepting inductive risk entails accepting the possibility of normatively incorrect decisions: some applicants will be approved despite ultimately defaulting, and some students will be accused of cheating despite having done nothing wrong.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
If the local faithfulness of the LIME approximation g satisfies LF(g,p) < Vπk[wkπk], then the model is somewhere inaccurate.
“If the local faithfulness of g satisfies LF(g, p) < V π k [w k π k ], then the model is somewhere inaccurate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The local environment π around x(i) is constrained by Pπ(|π − x(i)| > ε) = 0.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The monotonicity intuition applies positively (respectively negatively) to feature k and the LIME explainer yields wk < 0 (respectively wk > 0).
- Premisecitation
Multiple jointly incompatible models can align equally well with both the observed data and relevant domain knowledge, creating a problem of contrastive underdetermination.
“As with all tools of inductive inference, this gives rise to a problem of contrastive underdetermination (Laudan 1990;Stanford 2023): multiple jointly incompatible models align equally well with both the observed data and the relevant domain knowledge, making it difficult to choose among them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Laudan 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Stanford 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Algorithmic decisions result from decision makers' ethical norms combined with epistemic beliefs, which depend on measured feature values and the prediction model.
“Algorithmic decisions thus result from two components: decision makers have ethical norms that determine which decisions are (normatively or epistemically) correct according to their core ethical principles and chosen inductive risk, and these ethical norms yield actual decisions only through their combination with epistemic beliefs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and ignored overruling evidence can be sufficient to warrant reversal of a decision.
“In the following, we examine three types of evidence that can be sufficient to warrant reversal: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and ignored overruling evidence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
LIME explanations are insufficient to render decisions (somewhere) epistemically contestable.
“However, as the counterexample shows, LIME explanations are insufficient to render decisions (somewhere) epistemically contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
If measured feature values differ substantially from true values, this discrepancy can lead to corresponding errors in predictions and decisions.
“If the measured feature values x(i) differ substantially from the true values x (i) , this discrepancy can lead to corresponding errors in predictions and decisions (Tal 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tal 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Decisions based on a smaller evidential basis are generally less justified than decisions based on all available evidence.
“This implies that decisions based on a smaller evidential basis are generally less justified than decisions based on all available evidence, thereby supporting the idea that overruling evidence should overturn a decision.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given
Algorithmic decision-making crucially relies on the measured feature values of individuals.
“Algorithmic decision-making crucially relies on the measured feature values of individuals x(i) .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
A recent CJEU judgment (C-634/21) ruled that, in credit scoring, the concept of a decision within Article 22 GDPR is to be understood broadly.
“A recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment (C-634/21, 7 December 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:957) ruled that, in the context of credit scoring, the concept of a “decision” within the meaning of Article 22 GDPR is to be understood broadly.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites C-634/21
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
The GDPR specifies that individuals have the right to express their point of view.
“First, the GDPR specifies also that individuals have the right to express their point of view, aligning with our recommendation that individuals should be able to provide additional feature information to support their case.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites GDPR
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationcitation
When human intuitions are incorrect, XAI explanations do not support any inference about the correctness of the decision of interest.
“When the intuitions are themselves incorrect, which happens regularly (Tversky and Kahneman 1974), XAI explanations do not support any inference about the correctness of the decision of interest.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tversky and Kahneman 1974 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Since Rashomon models have equal epistemic justification, their predictions also have equal epistemic justification.
“Since these models have equal epistemic justification, so do their predictions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Rashomon models can differ substantially in their predictions for individual instances, a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity.
“Despite this, they can differ substantially in their predictions for individual instances, a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity (Marx, Calmon, and Ustun 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Marx, Calmon, and Ustun 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Other sources of evidence (predictive multiplicity, wrong feature values, overruling evidence) are, from a normative perspective, sufficient to overturn algorithmic decisions.
“we moved beyond XAI and examined other sources of evidence that are, from a normative perspective, sufficient to overturn algorithmic decisions.”
- Also stated in: § 7 Discussion · boosted
“we grounded our analysis in epistemological theory and demonstrated that these forms of evidence indeed allow decisions to be overturned.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 7 Discussion · boosted
- Interpretationreasoning
LIME explanations, when LIME coefficients point in the opposite direction of monotonicity rules, provide sufficient information to establish somewhere inaccuracy.
“The following theorem shows that LIME explanations, given LIME coefficients w k point in the opposite direction of monotonicity rules, only provide sufficient information to establish somewhere inaccuracy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The local environment π around x(i) is constrained by Pπ(|π − x(i)| > ε) = 0.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The monotonicity intuition applies positively (respectively negatively) to feature k and the LIME explainer yields wk < 0 (respectively wk > 0).
- Interpretationreasoning
The probability that the selected model p is epistemically incorrect for an individual i can be lower bounded by the minimum of the probabilities of positive and negative decisions in the Rashomon set.
“Then the probability that p is epistemically incorrect for an individual i can be lower bounded by P H D,δ (d(x (i) )̸ = d(x (i) ))≥min{P H D,δ ( d(x (i) )=1),P H D,δ ( d(x (i) )=0)}.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: There is no measurement error in the feature values, i.e., x(i) = x(i).
- Interpretationreasoning
If the reason rule A applies implying a positive (respectively negative) decision and the anchor B applies leading to the opposite decision with precision prec(B)=1−δ and Pπx(B)>0, and Pπx(A∩B)>δ, then the decision is somewhere contestable.
“Theorem 3. Let i be an individual to whom the reason rule A applies implying a positive (respectively negative) decision and the anchor B applies, leading to a negative (respectively positive) decision with precision prec(B) = 1 -δ and P πx (B) > 0, and let π be constrained by P π (|π -x(i) | > ϵ) = 0.If P πx (A ∩ B) > δ, then the decision is somewhere contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The reason rule A applies implying a positive (respectively negative) decision and the anchor B applies leading to a negative (respectively positive) decision with precision prec(B)=1−δ and Pπx(B)>0, and π is constrained by Pπ(|π − x(i)| > ε)=0.
- Premisenone given
Algorithmic decision-making reduces the epistemic basis of decisions to a fixed set of features to infer the unobserved property of interest.
“Algorithmic decision-making reduces the epistemic basis of decisions to a fixed set of features to infer the unobserved property of interest, e.g., whether the loan will be repaid.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The expected number of normatively contestable decisions relative to X is greater than the expected number of normatively contestable decisions relative to X,E.
“Then, the expected number of normatively contestable decisions relative to X is greater than the expected number of normatively contestable decisions relative to X, E, i.e.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The prediction models used are Bayes-optimal relative to X and to X,E, respectively.
- Premisereasoning
Predictions of unobserved properties from features are never perfect.
“These features allow decision makers to predict the unobserved property with some probability, but such predictions are never perfect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In machine learning, only models with strong performance on a holdout set are ultimately selected.
“Even though inductive assumptions play a central role in guiding the model selection process, the iron rule in machine learning is that only models with strong performance on a holdout set are ultimately selected (Hardt 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hardt 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
There always exists a multitude of prediction models that cannot be distinguished from an epistemic perspective, resulting from the same model selection process and exhibiting almost identical predictive performance.
“There always exists a multitude of prediction models that cannot be distinguished from an epistemic perspective: they result from the same model selection process and exhibit (almost) identical predictive performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Anchor explanations do not render decisions epistemically contestable.
“However, as the counterexample shows, they do not render decisions epistemically contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In practice, overruling evidence often results in a negotiation process between the decision maker and the individual to reach an agreement.
“In practice, this often results in a negotiation process between the decision maker and the individual, in which both parties attempt to reach an agreement (Lipsky 2010).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lipsky 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisereasoning
Non-monotonic decision-making can be justified because many relationships between features and unobserved variables are themselves non-monotonic.
“Non-monotonic decision-making can be justified, as many relationships between features and unobserved variables are themselves non-monotonic.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 45
- May combine two claims. 26
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMoreira et al. (2025) attempted to formalize contestability in a broad sense, encompassing risk analysis, accountability, and decision reversal.
“More recently, Moreira et al. (2025) attempted to formalize contestability in a comparatively broad sense, encompassing the facilitation of risk analysis, the assurance of accountability, and the enablement of decision reversal.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Moreira et al. 2025 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationOther explanation methods, such as LIME or Shapley values, are commonly discussed as potentially fostering contestability.
“Other explanation methods, such as LIME or Shapley values, are also commonly discussed as potentially fostering contestability (Mulligan, Kluttz, and Kohli 2019;Yurrita et al. 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Mulligan, Kluttz, and Kohli 2019 source
- cites Yurrita et al. 2023 source
Section 4.1 and Table 1 examine whether several types of explanations could support contestability. However, the paper does not identify LIME or Shapley values as those methods, or say they are commonly discussed for this purpose. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationProviding individuals with grounds to contest individual decisions is often cited as a central motivation of XAI.
“While providing individuals with grounds to contest individual decisions is often cited as a central motivation of the field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) (Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2016;Lipton 2018;Adadi and Berrada 2018;Molnar 2020), only very few technical works address contestability in greater detail (Mansi, Karusala, and Riedl 2025).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin 2016 source
The Introduction and §2 say that explanations help people understand and assess trust in individual predictions, and §3.1 describes showing users which words influenced a prediction. The paper does not identify giving individuals grounds to contest decisions as a motivation; its stated motivation is trust and effective use of classifiers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Lipton 2018 source
- cites Adadi and Berrada 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationContestability is a core ethical requirement in algorithmic decision-making and a central element in several worldwide legislations.
“Contestability is a core ethical requirement in algorithmic decision-making and, consequently, a central element in several worldwide legislations (Vaccaro et al. 2019;Maxwell and Dumas 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Vaccaro et al. 2019 source
The Abstract argues that designing for contestability can help build legitimacy in algorithmic systems, and Ethical Foundations links it to fairness and procedural justice. Those passages support its ethical importance, but do not establish it as a core requirement. The paper mentions legal mandates and regulators without saying contestability is a central element of legislation worldwide. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Maxwell and Dumas 2023 source
Section 3 (p. 19) identifies contestability as a purpose of legal explainability requirements, and §3.1 (p. 19) says the GDPR and Convention 108+ aim to enhance it. The paper also discusses French law (§3.7, p. 27), but these examples do not establish that contestability is a central element of legislation worldwide. The cited passages do not expressly characterize it as a core ethical requirement. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenWachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell (2017) motivate why counterfactuals can enable individuals to contest decisions and satisfy GDPR requirements, but they do not demonstrate how their method can be tailored to this purpose, nor under which conditions contestation based on counterfactuals should be successful.
“However, while Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell (2017) motivate why counterfactuals can enable individuals to contest decisions and satisfy the legal requirements established by the GDPR, they do not demonstrate how their method can be tailored to this purpose, nor under which conditions contestation based on counterfactuals should be successful.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Russell 2017 source
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAlgorithmic recourse and contestability both aim to reverse decisions; in recourse, the individual perceives the decision as correct, whereas in contestability, it is perceived as incorrect.
“Both algorithmic recourse and contestability aim to reverse decisions; however, in recourse, the individual perceives the decision as correct, whereas in contestability, it is perceived as incorrect (Venkatasubramanian and Alfano 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Venkatasubramanian and Alfano 2020 source
Section 3.1 distinguishes recourse narrowly conceived, which seeks a better outcome after a correct-but-unfavorable decision, from appeal, which corrects a decision based on faulty or incomplete data. This supports the broad contrast, but the paper describes whether the decision is actually based on correct data, not whether the individual perceives it as correct, and calls the second process appeal rather than contestability. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe recourse literature has evolved significantly, with work investigating robustness, fairness, and privacy risks of recourse.
“The recourse literature has evolved significantly over the years (Karimi et al. 2022), with work investigating the robustness (Upadhyay, Joshi, and Lakkaraju 2021;König et al. 2025), fairness (Von Kügelgen et al. 2022), and privacy risks (Pawelczyk, Lakkaraju, and Neel 2023) of recourse.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationPredictive multiplicity is high when all predictions are close to τ but some lie above and others below (high aleatoric uncertainty), or when predictions are widely spread with some far above and others far below τ (high epistemic uncertainty).
“Predictive multiplicity, and thus the prospects for successful epistemic contestability, is high in two scenarios: (1) when all predictions are close to τ but some lie above and others below, corresponding to high aleatoric uncertainty; and (2) when predictions are widely spread, with some far above and others far below τ , corresponding to high epistemic uncertainty (Hüllermeier and Waegeman 2021”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Hüllermeier and Waegeman 2021 source
Section 4.7.2 (page unavailable) links predictions near the 1/2 class boundary to aleatoric uncertainty and strongly opposed predictions from plausible hypotheses to epistemic uncertainty. It also says full aleatoric uncertainty involves agreement at 1/2, not predictions falling on both sides of a threshold. The paper does not establish the claimed two-scenario rule for predictive multiplicity or its implications for epistemic contestability. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationContestability forms the backbone of Article 22 GDPR.
“Contestability forms the “backbone” of Article 22 GDPR (Bayamlıoglu 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Bayamlıoglu 2022 source
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationHuman intuitions rely on rules of thumb that are not arbitrary and often exhibit high validity.
“Rather than estimating conditional probabilities over unobserved variables, as machine learning models do, humans typically rely on rules of thumb when forming beliefs and making decisions (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011;Selbst and Barocas 2018).These rules are not arbitrary; they often exhibit high validity, having emerged through repeated experience and pattern recognition (Gigerenzer 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011 source
- cites Selbst and Barocas 2018 source
In “B. Evaluating Intuition” (page unavailable), the paper says people draw on experience-based common sense and intuition when evaluating machine-learning models. It does not establish the broader claim that humans typically rely on rules of thumb when forming beliefs and making decisions. The separate claim that those rules often have high validity is cited to Gigerenzer (2023), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Gigerenzer 2023 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNon-epistemic values, such as fairness or interpretability concerns, can guide model selection in such situations.
“Indeed, non-epistemic values(Longino 2025), such as fairness or interpretability concerns, can guide model selection in such situations, an idea now widely discussed in the model multiplicity literature(Black, Raghavan, and Barocas 2022;Xin et al. 2022;Rudin et al. 2024;Meyer et al. 2025;Höltgen and Oliver 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationArticle 22 GDPR could be reinterpreted to grant a right to verify systems and probe decisions.
“Some scholars argue that Article 22 GDPR could be reinterpreted to grant a right to verify systems and probe decisions (Stewart 2026).We agree with these directions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Stewart 2026 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA variety of global measures for predictive multiplicity have been proposed.
“A variety of global measures for predictive multiplicity have been proposed (Watson-Daniels, Parkes, and Ustun 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Watson-Daniels, Parkes, and Ustun 2023 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThere are further intuitive rules that humans adhere to.
“Clearly, there are further intuitive rules that humans adhere to; consider, for example, causalrelevance rules, according to which only features that are causally relevant to the unobserved property should affect the decision (Sloman and Lagnado 2015;Ye et al. 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Sloman and Lagnado 2015 source
In “On Mechanism” (page unavailable), the review says causal knowledge helps people infer unobserved features and reports that people use causal structure when some features are unknown. It does not establish the stricter rule that only features causally relevant to the unobserved property should affect a decision. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Ye et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMany real-world settings are adversarial, and the interests of individuals and decision makers are not aligned.
“Many real-world settings, however, are adversarial, and the interests of individuals and decision makers are not aligned (Bordt et al. 2022).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Bordt et al. 2022 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe assumption that ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts.
“While standard in machine learning theory, the assumption that such ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts(Cabitza, Campagner, and Basile 2023;Kang 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Cabitza, Campagner, and Basile 2023 source
Section 5 challenges the idea that every classification has a single definitive label, citing the ambiguity of some phenomena. The discussion of evaluation also notes that a uniquely defined ground truth may be absent in subjective or ambiguous settings. These passages support the general controversy over ground-truth labels, but do not specifically address labels for unobserved attributes. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Kang 2023 source
May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningXAI explanations alone are insufficient to meet the demands of the right to contest and to enable individuals to overturn decisions; they must be complemented by other forms of evidence.
“Importantly, XAI explanations alone, as we have shown, are insufficient to meet the demands of the right to contest”
- Also stated in: § 7 Discussion · boosted
“We showed that the evidence provided by common XAI methods, together with human intuitions, allows only for the detection of errors somewhere and is insufficient to warrant decision reversal.”
- Also stated in: § 7 Discussion · plain
“XAI explanations alone are insufficient to enable individuals to overturn decisions and must therefore be complemented by other forms of evidence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 7 Discussion · boosted
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe Principle of Total Evidence holds that beliefs should always be based on all available evidence.
“This invokes an epistemic meta-principle, namely the Principle of Total Evidence (Carnap 1947), according to which beliefs should always be based on all available evidence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Carnap 1947 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenDenying the premise of epistemic correctness would require decision makers to question the validity of the very model they rely on.
“While the premise of epistemic correctness may appear strong, denying it would require decision makers to question the validity of the very model they rely on.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenCurrent legislation in the European Union, in particular the GDPR, already grants individuals access to these kinds of evidence that enable them to overturn decisions.
“We concluded by arguing that current legislation in the European Union, in particular the GDPR, already grants individuals access to these kinds of evidence that enable them to overturn decisions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSomewhere contestability and somewhere inaccuracy are insufficient to overturn a decision.
“Unlike epistemic and normative contestability, somewhere contestability and somewhere inaccuracies are insufficient to overturn a decision.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningA decision being normatively or epistemically correct does not mean it is uncontroversial, only that it aligns with the decision maker's ethical norms.
“That a decision is normatively or epistemically correct in our terminology does not mean that it is uncontroversial, only that it aligns with the decision maker's ethical norms.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIf individuals can prove that their true feature values are x(i) rather than x(i), and if the decision on the true values differs from the decision on the measured values, then the decision is epistemically contestable.
“Theorem 5. Assume the decision model d is epistemically correct, i.e. d = d.If individuals can prove that their true feature values are x (i) rather than x(i) , and if d(x (i) ) ̸ = d(x (i) ), then the decision is epistemically contestable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The decision model d is epistemically correct, i.e., d = d.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIf decision makers remain committed to their ethical and epistemic principles, then decisions that are normatively or epistemically contestable should, provided individuals can present sufficient supporting evidence, be overturned.
“If decision makers remain committed to their ethical and epistemic principles, then decisions that are normatively or epistemically contestable should, provided individuals can present sufficient supporting evidence, be overturned.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Decision makers remain committed to their ethical and epistemic principles in negotiation.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
PremisereasoningDecision makers usually do not have access to individuals' true feature values.
“Moreover, decision makers usually do not have access to individuals' true feature values.In lending, for example, individuals may provide incorrect information, or lenders may store inaccurate data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenErrors can occur during entering, transferring, or collecting data, such as changed employment status, redundant credit history entries, or public records pertaining to a different individual with the same name.
“During the processes of entering, transferring, or collecting data, errors can occur: the applicant's employment status may have changed; the credit history may contain redundant entries; or the collected public records may pertain to a different individual with the same name.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe estimator θRS_p is asymptotically consistent, although it systematically underestimates θ in finite samples.
“The estimator is asymptotically consistent, although it systematically underestimates θ in finite samples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenWhen humans make decisions, they flexibly incorporate additional information about other relevant feature values when these are presented to them.
“By contrast, when humans make decisions, they flexibly incorporate additional information about other relevant feature values when these are presented to them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenMachine learning requires inductive assumptions to generalize to novel instances.
“Like any other tool of inductive inference, machine learning requires inductive assumptions to generalize to novel instances.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationcitationSetting the level of inductive risk is an ethical decision that decision makers must make.
“Setting the level of inductive risk is, ultimately, an ethical decision that decision makers must make (Douglas 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Douglas 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe goals and nature of contestability are multifaceted and often debated, making both its legal and technical implementation challenging.
“The goals and nature of contestability are, however, multifaceted and often debated, which makes both its legal and technical implementation challenging (Lyons, Velloso, and Miller 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lyons, Velloso, and Miller 2021 source
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningWithout access to these types of information, individuals lack the necessary means to exercise their right to contestation, raising the possibility that the right effectively becomes meaningless.
“However, without access to these types of information, individuals lack the necessary means to exercise their right to contestation, raising the possibility that the right effectively becomes meaningless.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningPredictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable.
“We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“We show that these forms of evidence can be sufficient to alter algorithmic decisions on normative grounds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenDecision makers do not have access to true probabilities of loan default or cheating conditional on feature values; they estimate these probabilities from data using machine learning.
“Decision makers do not have access to the true probabilities of loan default or cheating conditional on feature values.Instead, they must estimate these probabilities from data, typically using machine learning methods.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSome reason rules adopted by humans are incorrect; for example, a very high salary may not suffice for a positive credit decision if substantial debt or an unstable job history outweighs it.
“Some reason rules adopted by humans are in fact incorrect.For example, while many people assume that a very high salary suffices to justify a positive credit decision, substantial debt or an unstable job history may outweigh a high salary, thereby justifying a negative decision.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenAccess to predictive multiplicity would require training multiple models with equal performance, all of which must meet stringent fairness and accountability standards.
“Access to predictive multiplicity would require training multiple models with equal performance, all of which must meet stringent fairness and accountability standards.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationProviding individuals with their complete data and API access may expose proprietary company information.
“Providing individuals with their complete data and API access may expose proprietary company information (Sokol and Flach 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sokol and Flach 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningFrom a purely epistemic perspective, all Rashomon models must be regarded as on a par; they have equal claim to representing the ground truth dependence.
“From a purely epistemic perspective, all Rashomon models must be regarded as on a par: they have equal claim to representing the ground truth dependence p.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe right to an explanation is not limited to current XAI solutions but encompasses any type of evidence that allows individuals to better understand the decision-making process.
“Second, the right to an explanation is not limited to current XAI solutions but encompasses any type of evidence that allows individuals to better understand the decision-making process (Vredenburgh 2022).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vredenburgh 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationModel-agnostic XAI techniques provide insight into a machine learning model by analyzing its sensitivity to changes in the input.
“Model-agnostic XAI techniques provide insight into a machine learning model by analyzing its sensitivity to changes in the input (Scholbeck et al. 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Scholbeck et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThree types of evidence warrant reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence.
“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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningSuch errors are often not visible to the individual, as she typically only knows the features she entered herself, and even those may contain unnoticed mistakes.
“Such errors are often not visible to the individual, as she typically only knows the features she has entered herself, and even those may contain unnoticed mistakes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDecision makers typically do not have access to an approximation of dX,E for arbitrary evidence E.
“Decision makers typically do not have access to an approximation of d X,E for arbitrary evidence E.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenLIME was chosen to illustrate monotonicity conflicts because it is most commonly used in contestability-relevant domains such as lending or hiring.
“We chose LIME here to illustrate monotonicity conflicts because it is most commonly used in contestability-relevant domains such as lending or hiring.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningConflicts between human intuitions and standard XAI explanations reveal errors somewhere, but such errors are insufficient to justify overturning a decision.
“We have shown that conflicts between human intuitions and standard XAI explanations reveal errors somewhere; however, as argued, such errors are insufficient to justify overturning a decision.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenArticle 22(3) GDPR lays down the right to contest and applies where a decision producing legal effects or similarly significantly affecting the data subject is based solely on automated processing.
“It is laid down in Article 22(3) GDPR and applies where a decision that produces legal effects concerning the data subject or similarly significantly affects them is based solely on automated processing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningOverruling evidence accepts that the decision is epistemically correct relative to X but epistemically incorrect, and thus contestable, relative to the expanded feature set X,E.
“Overruling evidence, by contrast, accepts that the decision is epistemically correct relative to X but epistemically incorrect, and thus contestable, relative to the expanded feature set X, E.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
PremisereasoningArticle 22(1) GDPR could be interpreted as providing a right to object to being subject to automated decision-making, extending the concept beyond strict contestation.
“While the right to contest a decision is specifically laid down in Article 22(3) GDPR, Article 22(1) GDPR could, in a broader sense, also be interpreted as providing a right to object to being subject to automated decision-making, thereby extending the concept beyond strict contestation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationDespite the centrality of the right to contest within Article 22, it remains barely articulated in the GDPR.
“Interestingly, despite the centrality of the right to contest within Article 22, it remains “barely articulated” in the GDPR (Kaminski and Urban 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kaminski and Urban 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationResponding to all additional feature information submitted by individuals could be costly and burdensome.
“Moreover, responding to all additional feature information submitted by individuals could be costly and burdensome (see also Article 12(5) GDPR and Article 15(4) GDPR).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Article 12(5) GDPR
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Article 15(4) GDPR
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningNormative contestability binds decision makers to their own ethical principles; epistemic contestability binds decision makers to the inductive risk they have accepted.
“Normative contestability binds decision makers to their own ethical principles.”
- Also stated in: § Monotonicity intuitions + LIME (Section 4.2) stronger contesting grounds · plain
“Epistemic contestability, by contrast, binds decision makers to the inductive risk they have accepted.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § Monotonicity intuitions + LIME (Section 4.2) stronger contesting grounds · plain
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationExisting EU legislation connects to the framework and individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.
“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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites GDPR
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningEpistemic contestability is stronger than somewhere contestability, which in turn is stronger than somewhere inaccuracy.
“Logically, this yields a hierarchy: epistemic contestability is stronger than somewhere contestability, which in turn is stronger than somewhere inaccuracy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenDecisions based solely on automated processing are prohibited in principle and permitted only where one of the exceptions in Article 22(2) GDPR applies, and even then suitable safeguards must be in place under certain circumstances.
“Such decisions are prohibited in principle.They are permitted only where one of the exceptions in Article 22(2) GDPR applies, and even then suitable safeguards must be in place under certain circumstances.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningFeature values can be subject to uncertainty.
“Similarly, feature values can be subject to uncertainty.For example, estimated monthly expenses or salary may vary substantially for self-employed or commission-based individuals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe finite-sample downward bias can be bounded.
“The finite-sample downward bias can be bounded; seeClark (1961).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Clark (1961) source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationClosest real instances receiving a different classification raise data privacy concerns.
“Closest real instances receiving a different classification would also be a reasonable choice, but raise data privacy concerns (Pawelczyk, Lakkaraju, and Neel 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Pawelczyk, Lakkaraju, and Neel 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe core claim that XAI explanations alone are insufficient would remain even if the analysis were extended to other intuitive rules and XAI explanations.
“We believe that even if the analysis were extended along these lines, our core claim would remain: XAI explanations alone are insufficient to enable individuals to overturn decisions and must therefore be complemented by other forms of evidence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenOur analysis was confined to a subset of human intuitions and XAI explanations.
“Our analysis was confined to a subset of human intuitions and XAI explanations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The main reason algorithmic contestability has been neglected as an algorithmic problem is the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability.
“However, we believe there is a more fundamental reason why contestability has been largely neglected as an algorithmic problem: the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability itself.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Decision makers have core ethical principles (maxims they commit to) that guide their decisions.
“These unobserved properties lie at the heart of decision makers' core ethical principlesfoot_1 that guide their decisions.Ethical does not mean that these principles are justified morally but only that they are maxims the decision maker commits to.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Decision makers remain committed to their ethical and epistemic principles in negotiation.
“If decision makers remain committed to their ethical and epistemic principles, then decisions that are normatively or epistemically contestable should, provided individuals can present sufficient supporting evidence, be overturned.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no measurement error in the feature values, i.e., x(i) = x(i).
“Assume there is no measurement error in the feature values, i.e. x(i) = x (i) .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The decision model d is epistemically correct, i.e., d = d.
“Assume the decision model d is epistemically correct, i.e. d = d.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The prediction models used are Bayes-optimal relative to X and to X,E, respectively.
“Moreover, assume that the prediction models used are Bayes-optimal relative to X and to X, E, respectively, i.e.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The local environment π around x(i) is constrained by Pπ(|π − x(i)| > ε) = 0.
“let π be constrained by P π (|π -x(i) | > ϵ) = 0.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The monotonicity intuition applies positively (respectively negatively) to feature k and the LIME explainer yields wk < 0 (respectively wk > 0).
“Assume that the monotonicity intuition applies positively (respectively negatively) to feature k and that the LIME explainer yields w k < 0 (respectively w k > 0).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The continuity rule applies to the individual and her counterfactual, and their distance is smaller than ε according to the distance function.
“If the continuity rule applies to the individual and her counterfactual, and their distance is smaller than ϵ according to ∥ • ∥”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The reason rule A applies implying a positive (respectively negative) decision and the anchor B applies leading to a negative (respectively positive) decision with precision prec(B)=1−δ and Pπx(B)>0, and π is constrained by Pπ(|π − x(i)| > ε)=0.
“Let i be an individual to whom the reason rule A applies implying a positive (respectively negative) decision and the anchor B applies, leading to a negative (respectively positive) decision with precision prec(B) = 1 -δ and P πx (B) > 0, and let π be constrained by P π (|π -x(i) | > ϵ) = 0.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ethical concerns about algorithmic decision-making are already widely discussed in the fairness community.
“Since these ethical concerns are already widely discussed in the fairness community, we deliberately focused on the thus-far overlooked epistemic aspects of contestability.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In our setup, individuals can contest decisions by appealing to the ethical norms to which the decision maker commits.
“In our setup, individuals can contest decisions by appealing to the ethical norms to which the decision maker commits.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In our account, the goals of the involved parties are aligned.
“Thus, in our account, the goals of the involved parties are aligned: individuals who are likely to repay their loans aim to convince the decision maker that they will do so, while individuals who did not cheat aim to convince the decision maker that they acted honestly.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The human intuitions (continuity, monotonicity, reason rules) are correct, i.e., the rules apply.
“Even under the strong assumption that these intuitions are correct, i.e. the rules apply, such conflicts imply an error only somewhere in the neighborhood of the explained observation and thus insufficient grounds to overturn the decision at hand.”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Adadi, A.; and Berrada, M. 2018. Peeking inside the black- box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE access, 6: 52138-52160.
- Barocas, S.; Hardt, M.; and Narayanan, A. 2023. Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.
- Fisher, A.; Rudin, C.; and Dominici, F. 2019. All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable's impor- tance by studying an entire class of prediction models simul- taneously. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(177): 1-81.
- Kaminski, M. E.; and Urban, J. M. 2021. The right to contest AI. Columbia Law Review, 121(7): 1957-2048.
- Kusner, M. J.; Loftus, J.; Russell, C.; and Silva, R. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.
- Laudan, L. 1990. Demystifying underdetermination. Min- nesota studies in the philosophy of science, 14(1990): 267- 297.
- Longino, H. 2025. The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge. In Zalta, E. N.; and Nodelman, U., eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Re- search Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2025 edition.
- Marx, C.; Calmon, F.; and Ustun, B. 2020. Predictive multi- plicity in classification. In International conference on ma- chine learning, 6765-6774. PMLR.
- PMLR.
- Rudin, C.; Zhong, C.; Semenova, L.; Seltzer, M.; Parr, R.; Liu, J.; Katta, S.; Donnelly, J.; Chen, H.; and Boner, Z. 2024. Position: amazing things come from having many good models. In Proceedings of the 41st International Con- ference on Machine Learning, 42783-42795.
- PMLR.
- Sokol, K.; and Flach, P. 2019. Counterfactual explanations of machine learning predictions: opportunities and chal- lenges for AI safety. In 2019 AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety, SafeAI 2019. CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings.
- In Zalta, E. N.; and Nodelman, U., eds., The Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stan- ford University, Summer 2023 edition.
- Tal, E. 2020. Measurement in Science. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Re- search Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2020 edition.
- Upadhyay, S.; Joshi, S.; and Lakkaraju, H. 2021. Towards robust and reliable algorithmic recourse. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 16926-16937.
- Authors
- Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G.
- Affiliations
- Munich Center for Machine Learning (DE)
- University of Tübingen (DE)
- Tübingen AI Center (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 961-973
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.16041
- OpenAlex
- W7161536531
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC2064, 511917847, EXC 2064_1, 390727645)
- 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
- explainable AI, algorithmic recourse, algorithmic fairness, counterfactual explanations, lime, anchors, EU data protection law, algorithmic transparency
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-30.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-30.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
