Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon

Trung Dong Huynh, Niko Tsakalakis, Ayah Helal et al.

Algorithms play a crucial role in many technological systems that control or affect various aspects of our lives. As a result, providing explanations for their decisions to address the needs of users and organisations is increasingly expected by laws, regulations, codes of conduct, and the public. However, as laws and regulations do not prescribe how to meet such expectations, organisations are often left to devise their own approaches to explainability, inevitably increasing the cost of compliance and good governance. Hence, we envision Explainability-by-Design, a holistic methodology characterised by proactive measures to include explanation capability in the design of decision-making systems. The methodology consists of three phases: (A) Explanation Requirement Analysis, (B) Explanation Technical Design, and (C) Explanation Validation. This paper describes phase (B), a technical workflow to implement explanation capability from requirements elicited by domain experts for a specific application context. Outputs of this phase are a set of configurations, allowing a reusable explanation service to exploit logs provided by the target application to create provenance traces of the application's decisions. The provenance then can be queried to extract relevant data points, which can be used in explanation plans to construct explanations personalised to their consumers. Following the workflow, organisations can design their decision-making systems to produce explanations that meet the specified requirements. To facilitate the process, we present a software architecture with reusable components to incorporate the resulting explanation capability into an application. Finally, we applied the workflow to two application scenarios and measured the associated development costs. It was shown that the approach is tractable in terms of development time, which can be as low as two hours per sentence.

Niko Tsakalakis, Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Trung Dong Huynh et al.

As automated decision-making solutions are increasingly applied to all aspects of everyday life, capabilities to generate meaningful explanations for a variety of stakeholders (i.e., decision-makers, recipients of decisions, auditors, regulators...) become crucial. In this paper, we present a taxonomy of explanations that was developed as part of a holistic 'Explainability-by-Design' approach for the purposes of the project PLEAD. The taxonomy was built with a view to produce explanations for a wide range of requirements stemming from a variety of regulatory frameworks or policies set at the organizational level either to translate high-level compliance requirements or to meet business needs. The taxonomy comprises nine dimensions. It is used as a stand-alone classifier of explanations conceived as detective controls, in order to aid supportive automated compliance strategies. A machinereadable format of the taxonomy is provided in the form of a light ontology and the benefits of starting the Explainability-by-Design journey with such a taxonomy are demonstrated through a series of examples.

Luc Moreau, Alfred Rossi, Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon

Motivated by the challenges of implementing policy-based data access control (PBAC) under multiple simultaneously applicable compliance frameworks, we present Parajudica, an open, modular, and extensible RDF/SPARQL-based rule system for evaluating context-dependent data compliance status. We demonstrate the utility of this resource and accompanying metamodel through application to existing legal frameworks and industry standards, offering insights for comparative framework analysis. Applications include compliance policy enforcement, compliance monitoring, data discovery, and risk assessment.

Steffen Staab, Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Laura Carmichael

The research question this report addresses is: how, and to what extent, those directly involved with the design, development and employment of a specific black box algorithm can be certain that it is not unlawfully discriminating (directly and/or indirectly) against particular persons with protected characteristics (e.g. gender, race and ethnicity)?