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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00399 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1,089 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 1 Nov 2017.

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 1089)

- [Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01889/) (2021)
- [Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing via Large Pre-Trained Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.01243/) (2021)
- [Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01167/) (2021)
- [Data-centric Artificial Intelligence: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.10158/) (2023)
- [Causal Inference in Natural Language Processing: Estimation, Prediction, Interpretation and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00725/) (2021)
- [If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.05364/) (2022)
- [Benchmarking and Survey of Explanation Methods for Black Box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.13076/) (2021)
- [OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.11104/) (2022)
- [Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.10790/) (2021)
- [Explaining in Style: Training a GAN to explain a classifier in StyleSpace](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13369/) (2021)
- [CF-GNNExplainer: Counterfactual Explanations for Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.03322/) (2021)
- [What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07817/) (2021)
- [Interpretable Deep Learning: Interpretation, Interpretability, Trustworthiness, and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.10689/) (2021)
- [Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.02666/) (2021)
- [Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02337/) (2023)
- [Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.13620/) (2021)
- [Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11841/) (2022)
- [Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.06641/) (2021)
- [Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11207/) (2023)
- [Diffusion Causal Models for Counterfactual Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.10166/) (2022)
- [CARLA: A Python Library to Benchmark Algorithmic Recourse and Counterfactual Explanation Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00783/) (2021)
- [Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11584/) (2022)
- [If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.01035/) (2021)
- [Explanations in Autonomous Driving: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.05154/) (2021)
- [Robust agents learn causal world models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10877/) (2024)
- [Explainability of deep vision-based autonomous driving systems: Review and challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.05307/) (2021)
- [Diffusion Models for Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15636/) (2022)
- [Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01254/) (2022)
- [Interactive Debugging and Steering of Multi-Agent AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.02068/) (2025)
- [Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09824/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.