Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12762 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866912133367726080 |
|---|---|
| author | Fresz, Benjamin Dubovitskaya, Elena Brajovic, Danilo Huber, Marco Horz, Christian |
| author_facet | Fresz, Benjamin Dubovitskaya, Elena Brajovic, Danilo Huber, Marco Horz, Christian |
| contents | 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 . |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_12762 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law Fresz, Benjamin Dubovitskaya, Elena Brajovic, Danilo Huber, Marco Horz, Christian Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society 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 . |
| title | How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12762 |