Cited by 153Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAccess Control and Trust

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explanation and trust: what to tell the user in security and AI?

Open access
Pieters, Wolter·2011·Ethics and Information Technology

Abstract

There is a common problem in artificial intelligence (AI) and information security. In AI, an expert system needs to be able to justify and explain a decision to the user. In information security, experts need to be able to explain to the public why a system is secure. In both cases, an important goal of explanation is to acquire or maintain the users’ trust. In this paper, I investigate the relation between explanation and trust in the context of computing science. This analysis draws on literature study and concept analysis, using elements from system theory as well as actor-network theory. I apply the conceptual framework to both AI and information security, and show the benefit of the framework for both fields by means of examples. The main focus is on expert systems (AI) and electronic voting systems (security). Finally, I discuss consequences of the analysis for ethics in terms of (un)informed consent and dissent, and the associated division of responsibilities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10676-010-9253-3

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Freuder, E., Likitvivatanavong, C., & Wallace, R. (2000) A case study in explanation and implication. In: CP2000 workshop on analysis and visualization of constraint programs and solvers.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 153

Metadata

Authors
Pieters, W.
Affiliations
University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Pieters, Wolter
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2010-11-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
53-64
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
OpenAlex
W2133761762
Cited by
153
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
explanation, trust, artificial intelligence, information security, expert systems, electronic voting, justification of decisions, actor-network theory, systems theory, informed consent, dissent, division of responsibilities, AI ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review