Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation
AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making: Toward AI Agents That Reason With Us, Not For Us
Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast,…
Feature EngineeringContestable Multi-Agent Debate with Arena-based Argumentative Computation for Multimedia Verification
Multimedia verification requires not only accurate conclusions but also transparent and contestable reasoning. We propose a contestable multi-agent framework that integrates multimodal large language models, external ver…
Argumentation-Based Explainability for Legal AI: Comparative and Regulatory Perspectives
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts, where their opacity raises significant challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. The so-called ``black box problem'' undermines …
Legal ReasoningFrom User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)
Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in domains such as decision-making, recommen…
ArgLLM-App: An Interactive System for Argumentative Reasoning with Large Language Models
Argumentative LLMs (ArgLLMs) are an existing approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and computational argumentation for decision-making, with the aim of making the resulting decisions faithfully explainable to …