How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12762v2
• Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:13:46 GMT
• Title: How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law
• Authors: Benjamin Fresz, Elena Dubovitskaya, Danilo Brajovic, Marco Huber, Christian Horz,
• Abstract summary: This paper focuses on European (and part German) law, although with international concepts and regulations. Based on XAI-taxonomies, requirements for XAI (methods) are derived from each of the legal bases.
• Score: 0.20971479389679337
• License:
• 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. Published in the Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31648 .

Related papers

• The explanation dialogues: an expert focus study to understand requirements towards explanations within the GDPR [47.06917254695738]
  We present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI. The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain. We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T15:50:02Z)
• 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)
• False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) [3.298597939573779]
  We argue that AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous "box-ticking" exercise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T20:02:07Z)
• Implications of the AI Act for Non-Discrimination Law and Algorithmic Fairness [1.5029560229270191]
  The topic of fairness in AI has sparked meaningful discussions in the past years. From a legal perspective, many open questions remain. The AI Act might present a tremendous step towards bridging these two approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T09:54:09Z)
• Advancing Legal Reasoning: The Integration of AI to Navigate Complexities and Biases in Global Jurisprudence with Semi-Automated Arbitration Processes (SAAPs) [0.0]
  This study focuses on the analysis of court judgments spanning five countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Sweden and Hong Kong. By incorporating Advanced Language Models (ALMs) and a newly introduced human-AI collaborative framework, this paper seeks to analyze Grounded Theory-based research design with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T16:47:34Z)
• 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)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• Quantitative study about the estimated impact of the AI Act [0.0]
  We suggest a systematic approach that we applied on the initial draft of the AI Act that has been released in April 2021. We went through several iterations of compiling the list of AI products and projects in and from Germany, which the Lernende Systeme platform lists. It turns out that only about 30% of the AI systems considered would be regulated by the AI Act, the rest would be classified as low-risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T06:23:16Z)
• The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future [0.0]
  The European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022. The latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels Effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and beyond. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T09:08:11Z)
• 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)

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.