Exploring Explainable AI in the Financial Sector: Perspectives of Banks and Supervisory Authorities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02244v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 14:11:37 GMT
• Title: Exploring Explainable AI in the Financial Sector: Perspectives of Banks and Supervisory Authorities
• Authors: Ouren Kuiper, Martin van den Berg, Joost van den Burgt, Stefan Leijnen
• Abstract summary: The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of supervisory authorities and regulated entities regarding the application of xAI in the financial sector. We found that for the investigated use cases a disparity exists between supervisory authorities and banks regarding the desired scope of explainability of AI systems. We argue that the financial sector could benefit from clear differentiation between technical AI (model) ex-plainability requirements and explainability requirements of the broader AI system in relation to applicable laws and regulations.
• Score: 0.3670422696827526
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) is seen as a solution to making AI systems less of a black box. It is essential to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability, which are especially paramount in the financial sector. The aim of this study was a preliminary investigation of the perspectives of supervisory authorities and regulated entities regarding the application of xAI in the fi-nancial sector. Three use cases (consumer credit, credit risk, and anti-money laundering) were examined using semi-structured interviews at three banks and two supervisory authorities in the Netherlands. We found that for the investigated use cases a disparity exists between supervisory authorities and banks regarding the desired scope of explainability of AI systems. We argue that the financial sector could benefit from clear differentiation between technical AI (model) ex-plainability requirements and explainability requirements of the broader AI system in relation to applicable laws and regulations.

Related papers

• Public vs Private Bodies: Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations and Audits? A Three-Step Logic Based on Case Studies of High-Risk Industries [0.5573180584719433]
  This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform who should audit which parts of advanced AI. The effective responsibility distribution between public and private auditors depends heavily on specific industry and audit conditions. Public bodies' capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T14:25:08Z)
• Open Problems in Technical AI Governance [93.89102632003996]
  Technical AI governance refers to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI. This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T21:13:56Z)
• Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches [0.0]
  AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. Different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism should be the interlinking of these available approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T12:49:58Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• The AI Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for the Finance Sector [12.486180180030964]
  The application of AI in the financial sector is transforming the industry. However, along with these benefits, AI also presents several challenges. These include issues related to transparency, interpretability, fairness, accountability, and trustworthiness. The use of AI in the financial sector further raises critical questions about data privacy and security. Despite the global recognition of this need, there remains a lack of clear guidelines or legislation for AI use in finance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T08:30:09Z)
• 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)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Accountability in AI: From Principles to Industry-specific Accreditation [4.033641609534416]
  Recent AI-related scandals have shed a spotlight on accountability in AI. This paper draws on literature from public policy and governance to make two contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T16:37:11Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)
• Learning from Learning Machines: Optimisation, Rules, and Social Norms [91.3755431537592]
  It appears that the area of AI that is most analogous to the behaviour of economic entities is that of morally good decision-making. Recent successes of deep learning for AI suggest that more implicit specifications work better than explicit ones for solving such problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-29T17:42:06Z)

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.