A Survey on Methods and Metrics for the Assessment of Explainability under the Proposed AI Act

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.11168v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:27:24 GMT
• Title: A Survey on Methods and Metrics for the Assessment of Explainability under the Proposed AI Act
• Authors: Francesco Sovrano, Salvatore Sapienza, Monica Palmirani, Fabio Vitali
• Abstract summary: This study identifies the requirements that such a metric should possess to ease compliance with the AI Act. Our analysis proposes that metrics to measure the kind of explainability endorsed by the proposed AI Act shall be risk-focused, model-agnostic, goal-aware, intelligible & accessible.
• Score: 2.294014185517203
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study discusses the interplay between metrics used to measure the explainability of the AI systems and the proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act. A standardisation process is ongoing: several entities (e.g. ISO) and scholars are discussing how to design systems that are compliant with the forthcoming Act and explainability metrics play a significant role. This study identifies the requirements that such a metric should possess to ease compliance with the AI Act. It does so according to an interdisciplinary approach, i.e. by departing from the philosophical concept of explainability and discussing some metrics proposed by scholars and standardisation entities through the lenses of the explainability obligations set by the proposed AI Act. Our analysis proposes that metrics to measure the kind of explainability endorsed by the proposed AI Act shall be risk-focused, model-agnostic, goal-aware, intelligible & accessible. This is why we discuss the extent to which these requirements are met by the metrics currently under discussion.

Related papers

• Robustness and Cybersecurity in the EU Artificial Intelligence Act [1.433758865948252]
  The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems. While prior work has sought to clarify some of these principles, little attention has been paid to robustness and cybersecurity. We identify legal challenges and shortcomings in provisions related to robustness and cybersecurity for high-risk AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T11:12:20Z)
• Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge [78.35388859345056]
  We present a framework for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, impacts, opportunities, and risks of GenAI systems. The framework distinguishes between four levels: the background concept, the systematized concept, the measurement instrument(s), and the instance-level measurements themselves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-17T02:35:30Z)
• The Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) in the AI Act: Roots, legal obligations and key elements for a model template [55.2480439325792]
  Article aims to fill existing gaps in the theoretical and methodological elaboration of the Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) This article outlines the main building blocks of a model template for the FRIA. It can serve as a blueprint for other national and international regulatory initiatives to ensure that AI is fully consistent with human rights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T11:55:55Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems [49.1574468325115]
  We show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. This work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T16:27:52Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
  The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI. This highlights the urgent need for international regulation. This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z)
• Towards a Responsible AI Metrics Catalogue: A Collection of Metrics for AI Accountability [28.67753149592534]
  This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T04:43:16Z)
• Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UK [1.5039745292757671]
  We perform the first thematic and gap analysis of policies and standards on explainability in the EU, US, and UK. We find that policies are often informed by coarse notions and requirements for explanations. We propose recommendations on how to address explainability in regulations for AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T07:53:07Z)
• A multidomain relational framework to guide institutional AI research and adoption [0.0]
  We argue that research efforts aimed at understanding the implications of adopting AI tend to prioritize only a handful of ideas. We propose a simple policy and research design tool in the form of a conceptual framework to organize terms across fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T16:33:01Z)
• An Objective Metric for Explainable AI: How and Why to Estimate the Degree of Explainability [3.04585143845864]
  We present a new model-agnostic metric to measure the Degree of eXplainability of correct information in an objective way. We designed a few experiments and a user-study on two realistic AI-based systems for healthcare and finance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-11T17:44:13Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.