Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21570v1
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 06:42:41 GMT
• Title: Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation
• Authors: Dalit Ken-Dror Feldman, Daniel Benoliel,
• Abstract summary: We argue for a shift toward validation as a central regulatory pillar.<n> Validation, ensuring the reliability, consistency, and robustness of AI outputs, offers a more practical, scalable, and risk-sensitive alternative to explainability.<n>We propose a forward-looking policy framework centered on pre- and post-deployment validation, third-party auditing, harmonized standards, and liability incentives.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Knowledge (AK) systems are transforming decision-making across critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. However, their growing opacity presents governance challenges that current regulatory approaches, focused predominantly on explainability, fail to address adequately. This article argues for a shift toward validation as a central regulatory pillar. Validation, ensuring the reliability, consistency, and robustness of AI outputs, offers a more practical, scalable, and risk-sensitive alternative to explainability, particularly in high-stakes contexts where interpretability may be technically or economically unfeasible. We introduce a typology based on two axes, validity and explainability, classifying AK systems into four categories and exposing the trade-offs between interpretability and output reliability. Drawing on comparative analysis of regulatory approaches in the EU, US, UK, and China, we show how validation can enhance societal trust, fairness, and safety even where explainability is limited. We propose a forward-looking policy framework centered on pre- and post-deployment validation, third-party auditing, harmonized standards, and liability incentives. This framework balances innovation with accountability and provides a governance roadmap for responsibly integrating opaque, high-performing AK systems into society.

Related papers

• Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach [0.0]
  This paper introduces the HAIG framework for analysing trust dynamics across evolving human-AI relationships.<n>Our analysis reveals how technical advances in self-supervision, reasoning authority, and distributed decision-making drive non-uniform trust evolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T01:57:08Z)
• Regulating Ai In Financial Services: Legal Frameworks And Compliance Challenges [0.0]
  Article examines the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in financial services.<n>It highlights how AI-driven processes, from fraud detection to algorithmic trading, offer efficiency gains yet introduce significant risks.<n>The study compares regulatory approaches across major jurisdictions such as the European Union, United States, and United Kingdom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T14:29:09Z)
• Policy Frameworks for Transparent Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models [1.0088912103548195]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enhances large language models (LLMs) by decomposing complex problems into step-by-step solutions.<n>Current CoT disclosure policies vary widely across different models in visibility, API access, and pricing strategies, lacking a unified policy framework.<n>We propose a tiered-access policy framework that balances transparency, accountability, and security by tailoring CoT availability to academic, business, and general users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T19:54:18Z)
• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [334.48358909967845]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools.<n>Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions.<n>This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Fairness in Agentic AI: A Unified Framework for Ethical and Equitable Multi-Agent System [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel framework where fairness is treated as a dynamic, emergent property of agent interactions.<n>The framework integrates fairness constraints, bias mitigation strategies, and incentive mechanisms to align autonomous agent behaviors with societal values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T04:42:00Z)
• Bridging the Gap in XAI-Why Reliable Metrics Matter for Explainability and Compliance [2.3020018305241337]
  The paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics.<n>Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models.<n>We advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T06:54:48Z)
• Know Where You're Uncertain When Planning with Multimodal Foundation Models: A Formal Framework [54.40508478482667]
  We present a comprehensive framework to disentangle, quantify, and mitigate uncertainty in perception and plan generation.<n>We propose methods tailored to the unique properties of perception and decision-making.<n>We show that our uncertainty disentanglement framework reduces variability by up to 40% and enhances task success rates by 5% compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T17:32:00Z)
• 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)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
  Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations. We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z)

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.