Sarra Tajouri | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Explainability and justification of automatic-decision making: A conceptual framework and a practical application

Explainability of algorithmic decision-making systems is both a regulatory objective and an area of intense research. The article argues that a crucial condition for the acceptability of algorithmic decision-making systems is that decisions must be justified in the eyes of their recipients. We make a clear distinction between explanation and justification. Explanations describe how a decision was made, while justifications give reasons that aim to make the decision acceptable. We propose a conceptual framework of explanations and justifications, based on Habermas's theory of communicative action and Perelman's New Rhetoric theory of law. This framework helps to analyze how different forms of explanation can support or fail to support justification. We illustrate our approach with a case study on university admissions in France.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Subjective fairness in algorithmic decision-support

The treatment of fairness in decision-making literature usually involves quantifying fairness using objective measures. This work takes a critical stance to highlight the limitations of these approaches (group fairness and individual fairness) using sociological insights. First, we expose how these metrics often fail to reflect societal realities. By neglecting crucial historical, cultural, and social factors, they fall short of capturing all discriminatory practices. Second, we redefine fairness as a subjective property moving from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. This shift allows the inclusion of diverse stakeholders perceptions, recognizing that fairness is not merely about objective metrics but also about individuals views on their treatment. Finally, we aim to use explanations as a mean to achieve fairness. Our approach employs explainable clustering to form groups based on individuals subjective perceptions to ensure that individuals who see themselves as similar receive similar treatment. We emphasize the role of explanations in achieving fairness, focusing not only on procedural fairness but also on providing subjective explanations to convince stakeholders of their fair treatment.

cs.CY↗