How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law
2404.12762
0
0
🤖
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between law and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). While there is much discussion about the AI Act, for which the trilogue of the European Parliament, Council and Commission recently concluded, other areas of law seem underexplored. This paper focuses on European (and in part German) law, although with international concepts and regulations such as fiduciary plausibility checks, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and product safety and liability. Based on XAI-taxonomies, requirements for XAI-methods are derived from each of the legal bases, resulting in the conclusion that each legal basis requires different XAI properties and that the current state of the art does not fulfill these to full satisfaction, especially regarding the correctness (sometimes called fidelity) and confidence estimates of XAI-methods.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The provided paper discusses how AI decisions should be explained, particularly in the context of legal and regulatory frameworks.
- It explores the need for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and the challenges of developing interpretable and transparent machine learning models.
- The paper examines existing norms, standards, and regulations related to XAI, with a focus on the European Union and Germany.
Plain English Explanation
As AI systems become more prevalent in various industries, there is a growing need to ensure that the decisions made by these systems can be understood and explained. This is particularly important in areas like healthcare, finance, and criminal justice, where AI-powered decisions can have significant consequences for individuals.
The paper argues that current legal and regulatory frameworks often lack the necessary guidance on how to ensure AI systems are transparent and accountable. It highlights the importance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which focuses on developing AI models that can provide clear explanations for their outputs.
The paper examines the existing norms, standards, and regulations related to XAI, with a particular focus on the European Union and Germany. It discusses the challenges of creating interpretable machine learning models and the need for clear guidelines and best practices to ensure that AI decisions can be understood and justified.
By addressing these issues, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on how to ensure that AI systems are developed and deployed in a responsible and ethical manner, with a focus on safeguarding against potential errors and biases.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by introducing the concept of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and the growing need for interpretable and transparent machine learning models. It discusses the challenges of achieving XAI, particularly in the context of complex, black-box models that are often used in high-stakes decision-making processes.
The authors then provide a taxonomy of the different approaches to XAI, including local and global interpretability, as well as the various stakeholders involved in the process of explaining AI decisions.
Next, the paper examines the existing norms, standards, and regulations related to XAI, with a focus on the European Union and Germany. It discusses the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its provisions on the "right to explanation" for automated decisions, as well as emerging frameworks and guidelines from organizations like the European Commission and the German Data Ethics Commission.
The authors also highlight the challenges of implementing these regulations and the need for clear guidance on how to comply with the requirements for transparent and accountable AI systems. They discuss the potential trade-offs between accuracy, interpretability, and other desirable properties of AI models.
Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of XAI research and its implications for legal and regulatory frameworks, with the goal of advancing the development of trustworthy and responsible AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thorough and well-researched examination of the challenges and considerations surrounding the explanation of AI decisions, particularly in the context of legal and regulatory frameworks. The authors have done an excellent job of highlighting the importance of XAI and the need for clear guidelines and best practices to ensure the transparency and accountability of AI systems.
However, one potential limitation of the paper is its focus on the European and German contexts. While these are important case studies, it would be beneficial to also consider the legal and regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, such as the United States or Asia, to provide a more comprehensive global perspective.
Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential trade-offs and challenges involved in implementing XAI solutions. For example, it could have discussed the potential tension between the desire for interpretable models and the need for high-performing, accurate models, or the challenges of explaining the decisions of complex, deep learning-based systems.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussions on the responsible development and deployment of AI systems, and it serves as a useful resource for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners working in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
Conclusion
The provided paper highlights the growing importance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in the context of legal and regulatory frameworks. It underscores the need for transparent and accountable AI systems, particularly in high-stakes decision-making domains.
The paper examines the existing norms, standards, and regulations related to XAI, with a focus on the European Union and Germany, and discusses the challenges of implementing these requirements. It also emphasizes the potential trade-offs involved in developing interpretable machine learning models.
Overall, the paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the responsible development and deployment of AI systems, and it serves as a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners working in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Neo Christopher Chung, Hongkyou Chung, Hearim Lee, Lennart Brocki, Hongbeom Chung, George Dyer
0
0
A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. Explainability has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous box-ticking exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.
6/14/2024
Privacy Implications of Explainable AI in Data-Driven Systems
Fatima Ezzeddine
0
0
Machine learning (ML) models, demonstrably powerful, suffer from a lack of interpretability. The absence of transparency, often referred to as the black box nature of ML models, undermines trust and urges the need for efforts to enhance their explainability. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques address this challenge by providing frameworks and methods to explain the internal decision-making processes of these complex models. Techniques like Counterfactual Explanations (CF) and Feature Importance play a crucial role in achieving this goal. Furthermore, high-quality and diverse data remains the foundational element for robust and trustworthy ML applications. In many applications, the data used to train ML and XAI explainers contain sensitive information. In this context, numerous privacy-preserving techniques can be employed to safeguard sensitive information in the data, such as differential privacy. Subsequently, a conflict between XAI and privacy solutions emerges due to their opposing goals. Since XAI techniques provide reasoning for the model behavior, they reveal information relative to ML models, such as their decision boundaries, the values of features, or the gradients of deep learning models when explanations are exposed to a third entity. Attackers can initiate privacy breaching attacks using these explanations, to perform model extraction, inference, and membership attacks. This dilemma underscores the challenge of finding the right equilibrium between understanding ML decision-making and safeguarding privacy.
6/26/2024
🤔
Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future
Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
In recent years, the impact of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in society has been absolutely remarkable. This impact is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. However,the adoption of AI/ML is also a cause of grave concern. The operation of the most advances AI/ML models is often beyond the grasp of human decision makers. As a result, decisions that impact humans may not be understood and may lack rigorous validation. Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with providing human decision-makers with understandable explanations for the predictions made by ML models. As a result, XAI is a cornerstone of trustworthy AI. Despite its strategic importance, most work on XAI lacks rigor, and so its use in high-risk or safety-critical domains serves to foster distrust instead of contributing to build much-needed trust. Logic-based XAI has recently emerged as a rigorous alternative to those other non-rigorous methods of XAI. This paper provides a technical survey of logic-based XAI, its origins, the current topics of research, and emerging future topics of research. The paper also highlights the many myths that pervade non-rigorous approaches for XAI.
6/19/2024
New!Position: Explain to Question not to Justify
Przemyslaw Biecek, Wojciech Samek
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a young but very promising field of research. Unfortunately, the progress in this field is currently slowed down by divergent and incompatible goals. We separate various threads tangled within the area of XAI into two complementary cultures of human/value-oriented explanations (BLUE XAI) and model/validation-oriented explanations (RED XAI). This position paper argues that the area of RED XAI is currently under-explored, i.e., more methods for explainability are desperately needed to question models (e.g., extract knowledge from well-performing models as well as spotting and fixing bugs in faulty models), and the area of RED XAI hides great opportunities and potential for important research necessary to ensure the safety of AI systems. We conclude this paper by presenting promising challenges in this area.
7/1/2024