Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected?

Amidst concerns over biased and misguided government decisions arrived at through algorithmic treatment, it is important for members of society to be able to perceive that public authorities are making fair, accurate, and trustworthy decisions. Inspired in part by equity and procedural justice theories and by theories of attitudes towards technologies, we posited that the perception of these attributes of decisions is influenced by the type of explanation offered, which can be input-based, group-based, case-based, or counterfactual. We tested our hypotheses with two studies, each of which involved a pre-registered online survey experiment conducted in December 2022. In both studies, the subjects ( N = 1200) were officers in high positions at stock companies registered in Japan, who were presented with a scenario consisting of an algorithmic decision made by a public authority: a ministry's decision to reject a grant application from their company (Study 1) and a tax authority's decision to select their company for an on-site tax inspection (Study 2). The studies revealed that offering the subjects some type of explanation had a positive effect on their attitude towards a decision, to various extents, although the detailed results of the two studies are not robust. These findings call for a nuanced inquiry, both in research and practice, into how to best design explanations of algorithmic decisions from societal and human-centric perspectives in different decision-making contexts. • Adverse algorithmic decisions imposed by public authorities are discussed. • The perceived fairness, accuracy, and trustworthiness of such decisions are examined. • These attitudes depend on the type of explanation provided by explainable AI. • The effects of the types of explanations on attitudes differ among decision domains. • These effects can be taken into account when designing and offering explanations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Government Information Quarterly
Published
2024-09-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
Citations
22
Primary Topic
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected?

Naomi Aoki, Kentaro Maeda, Tomohiko Tatsumi, G Naruse
22 citations
Government Information Quarterly
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
7.64
article

Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected?

Naomi Aoki, Kentaro Maeda, Tomohiko Tatsumi, G Naruse
article en
22 citations

Abstract

Amidst concerns over biased and misguided government decisions arrived at through algorithmic treatment, it is important for members of society to be able to perceive that public authorities are making fair, accurate, and trustworthy decisions. Inspired in part by equity and procedural justice theories and by theories of attitudes towards technologies, we posited that the perception of these attributes of decisions is influenced by the type of explanation offered, which can be input-based, group-based, case-based, or counterfactual. We tested our hypotheses with two studies, each of which involved a pre-registered online survey experiment conducted in December 2022. In both studies, the subjects ( N = 1200) were officers in high positions at stock companies registered in Japan, who were presented with a scenario consisting of an algorithmic decision made by a public authority: a ministry's decision to reject a grant application from their company (Study 1) and a tax authority's decision to select their company for an on-site tax inspection (Study 2). The studies revealed that offering the subjects some type of explanation had a positive effect on their attitude towards a decision, to various extents, although the detailed results of the two studies are not robust. These findings call for a nuanced inquiry, both in research and practice, into how to best design explanations of algorithmic decisions from societal and human-centric perspectives in different decision-making contexts. • Adverse algorithmic decisions imposed by public authorities are discussed. • The perceived fairness, accuracy, and trustworthiness of such decisions are examined. • These attitudes depend on the type of explanation provided by explainable AI. • The effects of the types of explanations on attitudes differ among decision domains. • These effects can be taken into account when designing and offering explanations.

Government Information QuarterlyVol. 41(4)
The University of Tokyo (JP)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
7.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? — Naomi Aoki, Kentaro Maeda, et al. · Government Information Quarterly (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS