Xenia Heilmann | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Are Algorithm Registers Transparent? Perspectives from Germany

Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration. While several such registers exist across Europe and globally, their capacity to deliver meaningful transparency remains contested. In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems with varying scopes and objectives. A recent conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025), outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany. We repurpose this proposal as an audit instrument, extracting structured checklists from the transparency goals and subgoals it formulates. The resulting checklists, translated from German into English, is made publicly available to support practitioners auditing existing registers or designing new ones. We apply this framework to conduct an external audit of the two main existing German transparency initiatives, Marktplatz der KI-Möglichkeiten and Platform Lernende Systeme, evaluating the extent to which they fulfill the proposed goals. Our audit reveals that several adaptations are likely needed for these registers to serve as an useful transparency instrument. We further propose a visualization of register transparency levels and derive concrete action items for improving existing German platforms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

cs.CY↗