Dataset | Mindset = Explainable AI | Interpretable AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12420v1
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:12:53 GMT
• Title: Dataset | Mindset = Explainable AI | Interpretable AI
• Authors: Caesar Wu, Rajkumar Buyya, Yuan Fang Li, Pascal Bouvry,
• Abstract summary: "explainable" Artificial Intelligence (XAI)" and "interpretable AI (IAI)" interchangeably when we apply various XAI tools for a given dataset to explain the reasons that underpin machine learning (ML) outputs. We argue that XAI is a subset of IAI. The concept of IAI is beyond the sphere of a dataset. It includes the domain of a mindset. We aim to clarify these notions and lay the foundation of XAI, IAI, EAI, and TAI for many practitioners and policymakers in future AI applications and research.
• Score: 36.001670039529586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We often use "explainable" Artificial Intelligence (XAI)" and "interpretable AI (IAI)" interchangeably when we apply various XAI tools for a given dataset to explain the reasons that underpin machine learning (ML) outputs. However, these notions can sometimes be confusing because interpretation often has a subjective connotation, while explanations lean towards objective facts. We argue that XAI is a subset of IAI. The concept of IAI is beyond the sphere of a dataset. It includes the domain of a mindset. At the core of this ambiguity is the duality of reasons, in which we can reason either outwards or inwards. When directed outwards, we want the reasons to make sense through the laws of nature. When turned inwards, we want the reasons to be happy, guided by the laws of the heart. While XAI and IAI share reason as the common notion for the goal of transparency, clarity, fairness, reliability, and accountability in the context of ethical AI and trustworthy AI (TAI), their differences lie in that XAI emphasizes the post-hoc analysis of a dataset, and IAI requires a priori mindset of abstraction. This hypothesis can be proved by empirical experiments based on an open dataset and harnessed by High-Performance Computing (HPC). The demarcation of XAI and IAI is indispensable because it would be impossible to determine regulatory policies for many AI applications, especially in healthcare, human resources, banking, and finance. We aim to clarify these notions and lay the foundation of XAI, IAI, EAI, and TAI for many practitioners and policymakers in future AI applications and research.

Related papers

• Explainable AI is Responsible AI: How Explainability Creates Trustworthy and Socially Responsible Artificial Intelligence [9.844540637074836]
  This is the topic of responsible AI, which emphasizes the need to develop trustworthy AI systems. XAI has been broadly considered as a building block for responsible AI (RAI) Our findings lead us to conclude that XAI is an essential foundation for every pillar of RAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T00:54:04Z)
• Why is plausibility surprisingly problematic as an XAI criterion? [38.0428570713717]
  We conduct the first critical examination of a common XAI criterion: plausibility. It measures how convincing the AI explanation is to humans. We do not recommend using plausibility as a criterion to evaluate or optimize XAI algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T20:59:44Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• On Two XAI Cultures: A Case Study of Non-technical Explanations in Deployed AI System [3.4918511133757977]
  Not much of XAI is comprehensible to non-AI experts, who nonetheless are the primary audience and major stakeholders of deployed AI systems in practice. We advocate that it is critical to develop XAI methods for non-technical audiences. We then present a real-life case study, where AI experts provided non-technical explanations of AI decisions to non-technical stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T07:02:27Z)
• A User-Centred Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Human-Robot Interaction [70.11080854486953]
  We propose a user-centred framework for XAI that focuses on its social-interactive aspect. The framework aims to provide a structure for interactive XAI solutions thought for non-expert users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T09:56:23Z)
• Knowledge-intensive Language Understanding for Explainable AI [9.541228711585886]
  How AI-led decisions are made and what determining factors were included are crucial to understand. It is critical to have human-centered explanations that are directly related to decision-making. It is necessary to involve explicit domain knowledge that humans understand and use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T21:12:30Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Explainable AI: current status and future directions [11.92436948211501]
  Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is an emerging area of research in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) XAI can explain how AI obtained a particular solution and can also answer other "wh" questions. This paper provides an overview of these techniques from a multimedia (i.e., text, image, audio, and video) point of view.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T08:42:19Z)

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.