Cited by 71Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Metrics, Explainability and the European AI Act Proposal

Open access
Sovrano, Francesco, Sapienza, Salvatore, Palmirani, Monica, Vitali, Fabio·2022·J

Abstract

On 21 April 2021, the European Commission proposed the first legal framework on Artificial Intelligence (AI) to address the risks posed by this emerging method of computation. The Commission proposed a Regulation known as the AI Act. The proposed AI Act considers not only machine learning, but expert systems and statistical models long in place. Under the proposed AI Act, new obligations are set to ensure transparency, lawfulness, and fairness. Their goal is to establish mechanisms to ensure quality at launch and throughout the whole life cycle of AI-based systems, thus ensuring legal certainty that encourages innovation and investments on AI systems while preserving fundamental rights and values. A standardisation process is ongoing: several entities (e.g., ISO) and scholars are discussing how to design systems that are compliant with the forthcoming Act, and explainability metrics play a significant role. Specifically, the AI Act sets some new minimum requirements of explicability (transparency and explainability) for a list of AI systems labelled as “high-risk” listed in Annex III. These requirements include a plethora of technical explanations capable of covering the right amount of information, in a meaningful way. This paper aims to investigate how such technical explanations can be deemed to meet the minimum requirements set by the law and expected by society. To answer this question, with this paper we propose an analysis of the AI Act, aiming to understand (1) what specific explicability obligations are set and who shall comply with them and (2) whether any metric for measuring the degree of compliance of such explanatory documentation could be designed. Moreover, by envisaging the legal (or ethical) requirements that such a metric should possess, we discuss how to implement them in a practical way. More precisely, drawing inspiration from recent advancements in the theory of explanations, our analysis proposes that metrics to measure the kind of explainability endorsed by the proposed AI Act shall be risk-focused, model-agnostic, goal-aware, intelligible, and accessible. Therefore, we discuss the extent to which these requirements are met by the metrics currently under discussion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/j5010010

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Through measures such as ethical evaluation of AI applications used in learning, regulating access to generative models, establishing protocols for the use of AI in research, or promoting decision-making transparency in automated systems, institutions create a concrete framework that facilitates legal and ethical literacy.

    “Through measures such as ethical evaluation of AI applications used in learning, regulating access to generative models, establishing protocols for the use of AI in research, or promoting decision-making transparency in automated systems, institutions create a concrete framework that facilitates legal and ethical literacy [51-53].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sovrano, F., Sapienza, S., Palmirani, M., & Vitali, F.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Palmirani, Monica
Venue
J
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-02-18
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
126-138
ISSN
2571-8800 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283384010
Cited by
71
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • J — Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
EU AI Act, explainability metrics, high-risk AI systems, transparency, regulatory compliance, explainable AI, AI regulation

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