CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 626

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A manifesto of open challenges and interdisciplinary research directions

Longo, Luca, Brcic, Mario, Cabitza, Federico, Choi, Jaesik, Confalonieri, Roberto, Ser, Javier Del, Guidotti, Riccardo, Hayashi, Yoichi, Herrera, Francisco, Holzinger, Andreas, Jiang, Richard, Khosravi, Hassan, Lecue, Freddy, Malgieri, Gianclaudio, Páez, Andrés, Samek, Wojciech, Schneider, Johannes, Speith, Timo, Stumpf, Simone·2024·Information Fusion
DOI 10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102301

Cites

57 of 57 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 140

  1. Swartout, 1991, Explanations in knowledge systems: Design for explainable expert systems, IEEE Expert, 6, 58, 10.1109/64.87686 · DOI
  2. Confalonieri, 2021, A historical perspective of explainable Artificial Intelligence, WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 11
  3. Speith, 2022, A review of taxonomies of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods, 2239
  4. Schwalbe, 2023, A comprehensive taxonomy for explainable artificial intelligence: a systematic survey of surveys on methods and concepts, Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 1
  5. Langer, 2021, What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)?–A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research, Artificial Intelligence, 296, 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103473 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cao, 2022, Ai in finance: challenges, techniques, and opportunities, ACM Comput. Surv., 55, 1, 10.1145/3502289 · DOI
  7. Haresamudram, 2023, Three levels of AI transparency, Computer, 56, 93, 10.1109/MC.2022.3213181 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Zerilli, 2022, Explaining machine learning decisions, Philos. Sci., 89, 1, 10.1017/psa.2021.13 · DOI
  9. Chazette, 2020, Explainability as a non-functional requirement: challenges and recommendations, Requir. Eng., 25, 493, 10.1007/s00766-020-00333-1 · DOI
  10. Páez, 2019, The pragmatic turn in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), Minds Mach., 29, 441, 10.1007/s11023-019-09502-w · DOI
  11. Weber, 2023, Beyond explaining: Opportunities and challenges of XAI-based model improvement, Inf. Fusion, 92, 154, 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.11.013 · DOI
  12. Bodria, 2023, Benchmarking and survey of explanation methods for black box models, Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 1
  13. Guidotti, 2022, Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking, Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 1
  14. Machlev, 2022, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques for energy and power systems: Review, challenges and opportunities, Energy AI, 9, 10.1016/j.egyai.2022.100169 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Mei, 2023, Explainable artificial intelligence by genetic programming: A survey, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 27, 621, 10.1109/TEVC.2022.3225509 · DOI
  16. Minh, 2022, Explainable artificial intelligence: a comprehensive review, Artif. Intell. Rev., 1
  17. Theissler, 2022, Explainable AI for time series classification: A review, taxonomy and research directions, IEEE Access, 10, 100700, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207765 · DOI
  18. Yang, 2022, Unbox the black-box for the medical explainable AI via multi-modal and multi-centre data fusion: A mini-review, two showcases and beyond, Inf. Fusion, 77, 29, 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.016 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Zini, 2022, On the explainability of natural language processing deep models, ACM Comput. Surv., 55, 1, 10.1145/3529755 · DOI
  20. Heuillet, 2021, Explainability in deep reinforcement learning, Knowl.-Based Syst., 214, 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106685 · DOI
  21. Mohseni, 2021, A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable AI systems, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. (TiiS), 11, 1
  22. Vilone, 2021, Classification of explainable artificial intelligence methods through their output formats, Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr., 3, 615, 10.3390/make3030032 · DOI
  23. Guidotti, 2018, A survey of methods for explaining black box models, ACM Comput. Surv., 51, 1, 10.1145/3236009 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Rawal, 2021, Recent advances in trustworthy explainable artificial intelligence: Status, challenges, and perspectives, IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell., 3, 852, 10.1109/TAI.2021.3133846 · DOI
  25. Yeom, 2021, Pruning by explaining: A novel criterion for deep neural network pruning, Pattern Recognit., 115, 10.1016/j.patcog.2021.107899 · DOI
  26. D. Slack, S. Hilgard, E. Jia, S. Singh, H. Lakkaraju, Fooling lime and shap: Adversarial attacks on post hoc explanation methods, in: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020, pp. 180–186. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lapuschkin, 2019, Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn, Nature Commun., 10, 1096, 10.1038/s41467-019-08987-4 · DOI · Paper page
  28. S. Lapuschkin, A. Binder, K.-R. Müller, W. Samek, Understanding and comparing deep neural networks for age and gender classification, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, 2017, pp. 1629–1638. · DOI
  29. Grinsztajn, 2022, Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data?, vol. 35, 507
  30. Rokach, 2016, Decision forest: Twenty years of research, Inf. Fusion, 27, 111, 10.1016/j.inffus.2015.06.005 · DOI
  31. Hatwell, 2020, CHIRPS: Explaining random forest classification, Artif. Intell. Rev., 53, 5747, 10.1007/s10462-020-09833-6 · DOI
  32. Fürnkranz, 2020, On cognitive preferences and the plausibility of rule-based models, Mach. Learn., 109, 853, 10.1007/s10994-019-05856-5 · DOI
  33. Krakauer, 2023, Unifying complexity science and machine learning, Front. Complex Syst., 1, 10.3389/fcpxs.2023.1235202 · DOI
  34. Fernandez, 2019, Evolutionary fuzzy systems for explainable artificial intelligence: Why, when, what for, and where to?, IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., 14, 69, 10.1109/MCI.2018.2881645 · DOI
  35. Huang, 2023, From decision trees to explained decision sets, Vol. 372, 1100
  36. Gorishniy, 2021, Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 34, 18932
  37. S.Ö. Arik, T. Pfister, Tabnet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 6679–6687, (8). · DOI
  38. Reduan Achtibat, 2024, Attnlrp: attention-aware layer-wise relevance propagation for transformers, arXiv:2402.05602 · arXiv
  39. Lécué, 2020, On the role of knowledge graphs in explainable AI, Semant. Web, 11, 41
  40. Vassiliades, 2021, Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 36, 10.1017/S0269888921000011 · DOI
  41. Baroni, 2011, An introduction to argumentation semantics, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 26, 365, 10.1017/S0269888911000166 · DOI
  42. L. Rizzo, L. Longo, Inferential Models of Mental Workload with Defeasible Argumentation and Non-monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning: a Comparative Study, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Advances in Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Co-Located with XVII International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, AI3@AI*IA 2018, 20-23 November 2018, Trento, Italy, 2018, pp. 11–26.
  43. Longo, 2021, Examining the modelling capabilities of defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning, Knowl.-Based Syst., 211, 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106514 · DOI
  44. S Band, 2023, Application of explainable artificial intelligence in medical health: A systematic review of interpretability methods, Inform. Med. Unlocked, 40, 10.1016/j.imu.2023.101286 · DOI
  45. Han, 2020, Which explanation should I choose? A function approximation perspective to characterizing post hoc explanations, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 35
  46. Agarwal, 2022, OpenXAI: Towards a transparent evaluation of model explanations, vol. 35, 15784
  47. Bussmann, 2021, Explainable machine learning in credit risk management, Comput. Econ., 57, 203, 10.1007/s10614-020-10042-0 · DOI
  48. Sachan, 2020, An explainable AI decision-support-system to automate loan underwriting, Expert Syst. Appl., 144, 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.113100 · DOI
  49. Rudin, 2019, Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t need to? A lesson from an explainable AI competition, Harv. Data Sci. Rev., 1, 10
  50. Sharma, 2022, Drones and machine learning for estimating forest carbon storage, Carbon Res., 1, 21, 10.1007/s44246-022-00021-5 · DOI
  51. Möllmann, 2017, A practical way to integrate risk in forest management decisions, Ann. For. Sci., 74, 1, 10.1007/s13595-017-0670-x · DOI
  52. Gollob, 2020, Forest inventory with long range and high-speed personal laser scanning (PLS) and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) technology, Remote Sens., 12, 1509, 10.3390/rs12091509 · DOI
  53. Holzinger, 2022, Digital transformation in smart farm and forest operations needs human-centered AI: challenges and future directions, Sensors, 22, 3043, 10.3390/s22083043 · DOI
  54. Holzinger, 2022, Information fusion as an integrative cross-cutting enabler to achieve robust, explainable, and trustworthy medical artificial intelligence, Inf. Fusion, 79, 263, 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.10.007 · DOI
  55. Desmarais, 2012, A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments, User Model. User-Adapt. Interact., 22, 9, 10.1007/s11257-011-9106-8 · DOI
  56. Bull, 2020, There are open learner models about!, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., 13, 425, 10.1109/TLT.2020.2978473 · DOI
  57. Holstein, 2019, Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher-AI complementarity, Grantee Submiss.
  58. A. Singh, S. Karayev, K. Gutowski, P. Abbeel, Gradescope: a fast, flexible, and fair system for scalable assessment of handwritten work, in: Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) Acm Conference on Learning@ Scale, 2017, pp. 81–88. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Hiremath, 2018, Chatbot for education system, Int. J. Adv. Res. Ideas Innov. Technol., 4, 37
  60. Liz-Domínguez, 2019, Systematic literature review of predictive analysis tools in higher education, Appl. Sci., 9, 5569, 10.3390/app9245569 · DOI
  61. Khosravi, 2019, RiPPLE: A crowdsourced adaptive platform for recommendation of learning activities, J. Learn. Anal., 6, 91
  62. S. Abdi, H. Khosravi, S. Sadiq, D. Gasevic, Complementing educational recommender systems with open learner models, in: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 2020, pp. 360–365. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Croitoru, 2023, Diffusion models in vision: A survey, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 45, 10850, 10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3261988 · DOI
  64. Cammarata, 2020, Thread: Circuits, Distill, 10.23915/distill.00024 · DOI
  65. Brcic, 2023, Impossibility results in AI: A survey, ACM Comput. Surv., 56, 8:1
  66. Bárcena, 2023, Enabling federated learning of explainable AI models within beyond-5G/6G networks, Comput. Commun., 210, 356, 10.1016/j.comcom.2023.07.039 · DOI
  67. W. Du, M.J. Atallah, Secure multi-party computation problems and their applications: a review and open problems, in: Proceedings of the 2001 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, 2001, pp. 13–22. · DOI
  68. R.R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, D. Batra, Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization, in: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2017, pp. 618–626. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Chen, 2019, This looks like that: deep learning for interpretable image recognition, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 32
  70. D. Rymarczyk, Ł. Struski, J. Tabor, B. Zieliński, Protopshare: Prototypical parts sharing for similarity discovery in interpretable image classification, in: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2021, pp. 1420–1430. · DOI
  71. Achtibat, 2023, From attribution maps to human-understandable explanations through Concept Relevance Propagation, Nat. Mach. Intell., 5, 1006, 10.1038/s42256-023-00711-8 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Sarker, 2021, Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence, AI Commun., 34, 197, 10.3233/AIC-210084 · DOI
  73. Hamilton, 2022, Is neuro-symbolic AI meeting its promises in natural language processing? A structured review, Semant. Web, 15, 1
  74. Tiddi, 2022, Knowledge graphs as tools for explainable machine learning: A survey, Artificial Intelligence, 302, 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103627 · DOI
  75. J. Johnson, B. Hariharan, L. Van Der Maaten, L. Fei-Fei, C. Lawrence Zitnick, R. Girshick, Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 2901–2910. · DOI · Paper page
  76. K. Yi, C. Gan, Y. Li, P. Kohli, J. Wu, A. Torralba, J.B. Tenenbaum, CLEVRER: Collision Events for Video Representation and Reasoning, in: ICLR, 2020.
  77. Müller, 2021, Kandinsky patterns, Artificial Intelligence, 300, 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103546 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Schneider, 2022, Explaining classifiers by constructing familiar concepts, Mach. Learn., 1
  79. Yeh, 2019, On the (in) fidelity and sensitivity of explanations, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 32
  80. Ferrario, 2022, The robustness of counterfactual explanations over time, IEEE Access, 10, 82736, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3196917 · DOI
  81. L. Qiu, Y. Yang, C.C. Cao, Y. Zheng, H. Ngai, J. Hsiao, L. Chen, Generating perturbation-based explanations with robustness to out-of-distribution data, in: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 2022, pp. 3594–3605. · DOI
  82. Krishnan, 2020, Against interpretability: A critical examination of the interpretability problem in machine learning, Philos. Technol., 33, 487, 10.1007/s13347-019-00372-9 · DOI
  83. Graziani, 2022, A global taxonomy of interpretable AI: Unifying the terminology for the technical and social sciences, Artif. Intell. Rev., 1
  84. Robbins, 2019, A misdirected principle with a catch: Explicability for AI, Minds Mach., 29, 495, 10.1007/s11023-019-09509-3 · DOI
  85. Palladino, 2023, A ‘biased’ emerging governance regime for artificial intelligence? How AI ethics get skewed moving from principles to practices, Telecommun. Policy, 47, 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102479 · DOI
  86. Khalifa, 2012, Inaugurating understanding or repackaging explanation?, Philos. Sci., 79, 15, 10.1086/663235 · DOI
  87. Strevens, 2013, No understanding without explanation, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A, 44, 510, 10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.12.005 · DOI
  88. P. Lipton, Understanding without explanation, in: Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, 2009, pp. 43–63. · DOI
  89. Mizrahi, 2012, Idealizations and scientific understanding, Philos. Stud., 160, 237, 10.1007/s11098-011-9716-3 · DOI
  90. Carter, 2016, Objectual understanding, factivity and belief, Vol. 423
  91. Erasmus, 2021, What is interpretability?, Philos. Technol., 34, 833, 10.1007/s13347-020-00435-2 · DOI
  92. Sullivan, 2022, Understanding from machine learning models, British J. Philos. Sci.
  93. Creel, 2020, Transparency in complex computational systems, Philos. Sci., 87, 568, 10.1086/709729 · DOI
  94. Fleisher, 2022, Understanding, idealization, and explainable AI, Episteme, 19, 534, 10.1017/epi.2022.39 · DOI
  95. Pirozelli, 2022, Sources of understanding in supervised machine learning models, Philos. Technol., 35, 23, 10.1007/s13347-022-00524-4 · DOI
  96. M.M. De Graaf, B.F. Malle, How people explain action (and autonomous intelligent systems should too), in: 2017 AAAI Fall Symposium Series, 2017, pp. 19–26.
  97. B. Mittelstadt, C. Russell, S. Wachter, Explaining explanations in AI, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2019, pp. 279–288. · DOI · Paper page
  98. Guidotti, 2021, Evaluating local explanation methods on ground truth, Artificial Intelligence, 291, 10.1016/j.artint.2020.103428 · DOI
  99. Sevillano-García, 2023, REVEL framework to measure local linear explanations for black-box models: Deep learning image classification case study, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 2023, 1, 10.1155/2023/8068569 · DOI · Paper page
  100. M.T. Keane, E.M. Kenny, E. Delaney, B. Smyth, If only we had better counterfactual explanations: Five key deficits to rectify in the evaluation of counterfactual xai techniques, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, 2021, pp. 4466–4474. · DOI
  101. Metta, 2022, Exemplars and counterexemplars explanations for skin lesion classifiers, vol. 354, 258
  102. van der Lee, 2021, Human evaluation of automatically generated text: Current trends and best practice guidelines, Comput. Speech Lang., 67, 10.1016/j.csl.2020.101151 · DOI
  103. Confalonieri, 2023, An operational framework for guiding human evaluation in Explainable and Trustworthy AI, IEEE Intell. Syst., 1
  104. Hedström, 2023, Quantus: An explainable AI toolkit for responsible evaluation of neural network explanation, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24, 1
  105. Arras, 2022, CLEVR-XAI: A benchmark dataset for the ground truth evaluation of neural network explanations, Inf. Fusion, 81, 14, 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.008 · DOI
  106. Confalonieri, 2021, Using ontologies to enhance human understandability of global post-hoc explanations of Black-box models, Artificial Intelligence, 296, 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103471 · DOI
  107. Nielsen, 2022, Robust explainability: A tutorial on gradient-based attribution methods for deep neural networks, IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 39, 73, 10.1109/MSP.2022.3142719 · DOI
  108. Yuan, 2023, Compositional scene representation learning via reconstruction: A survey, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 45, 11540, 10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3286184 · DOI
  109. Rizzo, 2020, An empirical evaluation of the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, Expert Syst. Appl., 147, 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113220 · DOI
  110. L. Rizzo, L. Longo, A Qualitative Investigation of the Explainability of Defeasible Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning, in: Proceedings for the 26th AIAI Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, December 6-7th, 2018, 2018, pp. 138–149.
  111. Vilone, 2022, An XAI method for the automatic formation of an abstract argumentation framework from a neural network and its objective evaluation, vol. 3209
  112. Vielhaben, 2024, Explainable ai for time series via virtual inspection layers, Pattern Recognition, 150, 110309, 10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110309 · DOI · Paper page
  113. Ahmed, 2023, Interpreting disentangled representations of person-specific convolutional variational autoencoders of spatially preserving EEG topographic maps via clustering and visual plausibility, Information, 14, 10.3390/info14090489 · DOI
  114. Krakauer, 2014, The computational systems of the world, BioScience, 64, 351, 10.1093/biosci/biu024 · DOI
  115. Badreddine, 2022, Logic tensor networks, Artificial Intelligence, 303, 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103649 · DOI
  116. Meske, 2020, Explainable artificial intelligence: Objectives, stakeholders and future research opportunities, Inf. Syst. Manage.
  117. R. Hamon, H. Junklewitz, G. Malgieri, P.D. Hert, L. Beslay, I. Sanchez, Impossible explanations? Beyond explainable AI in the GDPR from a COVID-19 use case scenario, in: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2021, pp. 549–559. · DOI
  118. Flack, 2012, Multiple time-scales and the developmental dynamics of social systems, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 367, 1802, 10.1098/rstb.2011.0214 · DOI
  119. P. Sanchez, S.A. Tsaftaris, Diffusion causal models for counterfactual estimation, in: Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, CLeaR, 2022.
  120. M. Augustin, V. Boreiko, F. Croce, M. Hein, Diffusion Visual Counterfactual Explanations, in: NeurIPS, 2022. · DOI
  121. J. Schneider, J.P. Handali, Personalized Explanation for Machine Learning: a Conceptualization, in: European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, 2019.
  122. Zhu, 2023, Principled reinforcement learning with human feedback from pairwise or K-wise comparisons, vol. 202, 43037
  123. Rudin, 2019, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead, Nat. Mach. Intell., 1, 206, 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · DOI · Paper page
  124. Hamon, 2022, Bridging the gap between AI and explainability in the GDPR: Towards trustworthiness-by-design in automated decision-makin, IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., 17, 72, 10.1109/MCI.2021.3129960 · DOI
  125. Gunning, 2019, XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence, Science Robotics, 4, 10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120 · DOI · Paper page
  126. Cabitza, 2021, The need to move away from agential-AI: Empirical investigations, useful concepts and open issues, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 155, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102696 · DOI · Paper page
  127. M.L. Leavitt, A. Morcos, Towards falsifiable interpretability research, in: NeurIPS 2020 Workshop: ML Retrospectives, Surveys and Meta-Analyses, ML-RSA, 2020.
  128. A. Krajna, M. Brcic, M. Kovac, A. Sarcevic, Explainable Artificial Intelligence: An Updated Perspective, in: Proceedings of 45th Jubilee International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO) 2022, Opatija, Croatia, 2022, pp. 859–864. · DOI
  129. J. Schneider, C. Meske, M. Vlachos, Deceptive AI Explanations: Creation and Detection, in: International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART, 2022, pp. 44–55. · DOI
  130. Schneider, 2023, Reflective-net: Learning from explanations, Data Min. Knowl. Discov.
  131. Yampolskiy, 2020, Unexplainability and incomprehensibility of AI, J. Artif. Intell. Conscious., 07, 277, 10.1142/S2705078520500150 · DOI
  132. Yampolskiy, 2017, What are the ultimate limits to computational techniques: verifier theory and unverifiability, Phys. Scr., 92, 10.1088/1402-4896/aa7ca8 · DOI
  133. Boenisch, 2021, A systematic review on model watermarking for neural networks, Front. Big Data, 4, 10.3389/fdata.2021.729663 · DOI
  134. J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, Y. Wen, J. Katz, I. Miers, T. Goldstein, A Watermark for Large Language Models, in: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023, pp. 202:17061–17084.
  135. Cabitza, 2023, Quod erat demonstrandum?-Towards a typology of the concept of explanation for the design of explainable AI, Expert Syst. Appl., 213, 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118888 · DOI · Paper page
  136. Malgieri, 2021, “Just” algorithms: justification (beyond explanation) of automated decisions under the general data protection regulation, Law Bus., 1, 16, 10.2478/law-2021-0003 · DOI · Paper page
  137. L.M. Austin, Enough about me: why privacy is about power, not consent (or harm), in: A. Sarat (Ed.), A World Without Privacy: What Law Can and Should Do?, 2014, pp. 131–189. · DOI
  138. Kaminski, 2020, Algorithmic impact assessments under the GDPR: producing multi-layered explanations, Int. Data Priv. Law, 19
  139. Gregory, 2003, Scandinavian approaches to participatory design, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 19, 62
  140. Malgieri, 2023, In/acceptable marketing and consumers’ privacy expectations: Four tests from EU data protection law, J. Consum. Mark., 40, 209, 10.1108/JCM-03-2021-4571 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Longo, L., Brcic, M., Cabitza, F., Choi, J., Confalonieri, R., Ser, J. D., Guidotti, R., Hayashi, Y., Herrera, F., Holzinger, A., Jiang, R., Khosravi, H., Lecue, F., Malgieri, G., Páez, A., Samek, W., Schneider, J., Speith, T., & Stumpf, S.
ORCID
Longo, Luca
Venue
Information Fusion
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
106
Pages
102301
ISSN
1566-2535
DOI
10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102301
Cited by
626
References
57
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2022-0-00984, ERC-2018-ADG G.A. 834756, 871042)
  • European Commission (AI4ES, CER-20211030)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (389792660, KI-FOR 5363)
  • Volkswagen Foundation (AZ 98509, AZ 9B830, AZ 98514)
  • Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (PID2020-119478GB-I00, BIRD231830, IT1456-22)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación
  • Austrian Science Fund (PRIN 2022 PNRR 1409/22, P-32554)

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