# The explanation dialogues: an expert focus study to understand requirements towards explanations within the GDPR

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05325 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05325/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.01933/) (2018)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02478/) (2020)
- [Explaining Explanations in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.01439/) (2018)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19775/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09824/) (2021)
- [Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.10295/) (2022)
- [The Challenge of Crafting Intelligible Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.04263/) (2018)
- [Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UK](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11218/) (2023)
- [Multiple Purposes, Multiple Problems: A User Study of Consent Dialogs after GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10048/) (2019)
- [How Can We Develop Explainable Systems? Insights from a Literature Review and an Interview Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.01438/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) provides methods to understand non-interpretable machine learning models. However, we have little knowledge about what legal experts expect from these explanations, including their legal compliance with, and value against European Union legislation. To close this gap, we present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI, with a specific focus on the European General Data Protection Regulation. The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain. We extract both a set of hierarchical and interconnected codes using grounded theory, and present the standpoints of the participating experts towards XAI. We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject. Finally, we present a set of recommendations for developers of XAI methods, and indications of legal areas of discussion. Among others, recommendations address the presentation, choice, and content of an explanation, technical risks as well as the end-user, while we provide legal pointers to the contestability of explanations, transparency thresholds, intellectual property rights as well as the relationship between involved parties.