Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2405.03820v2)

Published 6 May 2024 in cs.CY, cs.AI, and cs.HC

Abstract: 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.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. Sanity checks for saliency maps. 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018), October 2018.
  2. On the robustness of interpretability methods. 2018 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2018), June 2018.
  3. The lung image database consortium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): A completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Medical Physics, 38(2):915–931, January 2011.
  4. Arthur.AI. 6 challenges in operationalizing computer vision models. White Paper.
  5. Adversarial attacks and defenses in explainable artificial intelligence: A survey. Information Fusion, vol. 107, 102303, 2024, 107:102303, July 2023.
  6. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai. Information Fusion, 58:82–115, June 2020.
  7. Joseph Biden. Executive order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. The White House (United States), October 2023. Executive Order 14110.
  8. Feature perturbation augmentation for reliable evaluation of importance estimators in neural networks. Pattern Recognition Letters, 176:131–139, December 2023.
  9. Fidelity of Interpretability Methods and Perturbation Artifacts in Neural Networks. In 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) Tiny Papers. ICLR, March 2023.
  10. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. April 2021.
  11. Human-centered evaluation of xai methods. ICDMW (2023) 912-921, December 2023.
  12. Ai trust: Can explainable ai enhance warranted trust? Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023:1–12, October 2023.
  13. Li Deng. The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6):141–142, 2012.
  14. Directorate-General for Communication. Types of eu law. Technical report, European Commission. Accessed April 23, 2024.
  15. Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blame. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, June 2019.
  16. European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act). European Union Law, 2021. COM/2021/206 final.
  17. European Commission. Proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (ai liability directive). European Union Law, 2022. COM/2022/496 final.
  18. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recital 71 for article 22 - automated individual decision-making, including profiling of general data protection regulation (regulation (eu) 2016/679). Official Journal of the European Union, April 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
  19. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council of 27 april 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing directive 95/46/ec (general data protection regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, April 2016.
  20. European Parliament. Eu guidelines on ethicsin artificial intelligence:context and implementation. Briefing, 2019.
  21. European Parliament. Artificial intelligence act: Meps adopt landmark law. Press Release, March 2024.
  22. Matthew L. Ginsberg. Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence, 30(1):35–79, October 1986.
  23. European union regulations on algorithmic decision making and a “right to explanation”. AI Magazine, 38(3):50–57, September 2017.
  24. G Grahne. Updates and counterfactuals. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(1):87–117, February 1998.
  25. From ‘ai’ to probabilistic automation: How does anthropomorphization oftechnical systems descriptions influence trust? ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT 2024), 2024.
  26. Alon Jacovi. Trends in explainable ai (xai) literature. January 2023.
  27. How can i choose an explainer?: An application-grounded evaluation of post-hoc explanations. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21. ACM, March 2021.
  28. Luca Longo, editor. Explainable Artificial Intelligence: First World Conference, xAI 2023, Lisbon, Portugal, July 26–28, 2023, Proceedings, Part I. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.
  29. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pages 4765–4774. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
  30. Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook, 2010.
  31. From anecdotal evidence to quantitative evaluation methods: A systematic review on evaluating explainable ai. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(13s):1–42, July 2023.
  32. Andrés Páez. The pragmatic turn in explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Minds and Machines, 29(3):441–459, May 2019.
  33. ” why should i trust you?” explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135–1144, 2016.
  34. Cynthia Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5):206–215, May 2019.
  35. Ando Saabas. Interpreting random forests. https://github.com/andosa/treeinterpreter, 2014.
  36. Explainable ai (xai): A systematic meta-survey of current challenges and future opportunities. Knowledge-Based Systems, 263:110273, March 2023.
  37. Mutual explanations for cooperative decision making in medicine. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 34(2):227–233, January 2020.
  38. A survey of contrastive and counterfactual explanation generation methods for explainable artificial intelligence. IEEE Access, 9:11974–12001, 2021.
  39. Explanatory interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’19. ACM, January 2019.
  40. U.S. Department of Justice. Equal credit opportunity act (title vii of the consumer credit protection act) 15 u.s. code, chapter 41 consumer credit protection subchapter iv - equal credit opportunity§ 1691 - scope of prohibition, October 1974. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1691.
  41. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2):76–99, May 2017.
  42. Learning in the presence of concept drift and hidden contexts. Machine Learning, 23(1):69–101, April 1996.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Neo Christopher Chung (13 papers)
  2. Hongkyou Chung (1 paper)
  3. Hearim Lee (1 paper)
  4. Hongbeom Chung (1 paper)
  5. Lennart Brocki (11 papers)
  6. George Dyer (2 papers)
Citations (1)