Identifying Algorithmic Decision Subjects' Needs for Meaningful Contestability
Mireia Yurrita, Himanshu Verma, Agathe Balayn, Kars Alfrink, Ujwal Gadiraju, Alessandro Bozzon
Abstract
Contestability has been proposed as a key element in designing algorithmic decision-making processes that safeguard decision subjects' rights to dignity and autonomy. However, little is known about how contestability can be operationalized based on decision subjects' needs and preferences. We address this research gap by identifying decision subjects' information and procedural needs for enacting meaningful contestability. To this end, we chose an illegal holiday rental detection scenario as our case; a high-risk decision-making process in the public sector. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with citizens with experience renting their homes out and different levels of AI literacy. We found that decision subjects request interventions that facilitate (1) cooperation in sense-making, (2) support in contestation acts, and (3) appropriate responsibility attribution. Our results highlight the cooperative work behind contestability, and motivate future efforts to structure individual and collective action, to personalize explanations for contestability, and to open up sites of contestation in AI pipelines.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext bf5f134d-d6d5-4387-b8a0-2df587cb308fBuilds on26
- To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingZana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, Krzysztof Z. GajosCSCW 2021 · 962 citations
- Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User ExperiencesQ. Vera Liao, Daniel M. Gruen, Sarah MillerCHI 2020 · 758 citations
- Re-examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to DesignQian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn P. Rosé, John ZimmermanCHI 2020 · 604 citations
- Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systemsUpol Ehsan, Q. Vera Liao, Michael J. Muller, Mark O. Riedl et al.CHI 2021 · 505 citations
- Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AIMichael A. Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna M. WallachCHI 2020 · 428 citations
Related papers
- Contestable Camera Cars: A Speculative Design Exploration of Public AI That Is Open and Responsive to DisputeKars Alfrink, Ianus Keller, Neelke Doorn, Gerd KortuemCHI 2023 · 44 citations
- Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic DecisionsHenrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso, Tim MillerCSCW 2021 · 3 citations
- Diametrically Opposed Attributes? Review Process Preferences and Priorities When Contesting Algorithmic DecisionsHenrietta Lyons, Tim Miller, Eduardo VellosoCSCW 2025 · 2 citations
- Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and ContestabilityMireia Yurrita, Tim Draws, Agathe Balayn, Dave Murray-Rust et al.CHI 2023 · 73 citations
- What's the Appeal? Perceptions of Review Processes for Algorithmic DecisionsHenrietta Lyons, Senuri Wijenayake, Tim Miller, Eduardo VellosoCHI 2022 · 26 citations
