Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR

TL;DR

This paper proposes using counterfactual explanations to clarify automated decisions under GDPR, enabling individuals to understand, contest, or improve outcomes without revealing the system's internal workings.

Contribution

It introduces the concept of unconditional counterfactual explanations as a practical way to comply with GDPR while avoiding the complexities of opening the black box.

Findings

Counterfactual explanations support understanding, contestation, and future action.

GDPR can be aligned with counterfactual explanations for legal compliance.

Proposes a method for providing meaningful explanations without revealing system internals.

Abstract

There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function. Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued, explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box. Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the system.