Stakeholders in Explainable AI
Open accessAbstract
There is general consensus that it is important for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning systems to be explainable and/or interpretable. However, there is no general consensus over what is meant by 'explainable' and 'interpretable'. In this paper, we argue that this lack of consensus is due to there being several distinct stakeholder communities. We note that, while the concerns of the individual communities are broadly compatible, they are not identical, which gives rise to different intents and requirements for explainability/interpretability. We use the software engineering distinction between validation and verification, and the epistemological distinctions between knowns/unknowns, to tease apart the concerns of the stakeholder communities and highlight the areas where their foci overlap or diverge. It is not the purpose of the authors of this paper to 'take sides' - we count ourselves as members, to varying degrees, of multiple communities - but rather to help disambiguate what stakeholders mean when they ask 'Why?' of an AI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
As black-box ML models are increasingly employed to make important predictions in critical contexts, the demand for transparency is increasing from various stakeholders in AI.
“As black-box Machine Learning (ML) models are increasingly being employed to make important predictions in critical contexts, the demand for transparency is increasing from the various stakeholders in AI [6].”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
The mythos of model interpretability
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3233231 · Cited by 5,427 · see citing works
European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a “Right to Explanation”
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741 · Cited by 2,131 · see citing works
Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep taylor decomposition
Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Binder, A., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2016.11.008 · Cited by 1,357 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Langer, M., Oster, D., Speith, T., Hermanns, H., Kästner, L., Schmidt, E., Sesing, A., & Baum, K. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103473 · Cited by 652 · see citing works
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges
Molnar, C., Casalicchio, G., & Bischl, B. (2020) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_28 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making
de Bruijn, H., Warnier, M., & Janssen, M. (2022) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Rapid Trust Calibration through Interpretable and Uncertainty-Aware AI
Tomsett, R., Preece, A., Braines, D., Cerutti, F., Chakraborty, S., Srivastava, M., Pearson, G., & Kaplan, L. (2020) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2020.100049 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Self-citationBayesian networks for interpretable machine learning and optimization
Mihaljević, B., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.01.138 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Kalakoti, R., Bahsi, H., & Nõmm, S. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3360626 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Explainable goal-driven agents and robots-a comprehensive review
Sado, F., Loo, C. K., Liew, W. S., Kerzel, M., & Wermter, S. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3564240 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“Although the need for explainability in AI systems has been long established during the MYCIN era, also known as the era of the expert systems [167, 168], the current drive for explainability has been motivated by recent governmental efforts from the European Union, United States (USA) [29], and China [150], which hav…”
BackgroundMehdiyev, N., & Fettke, P. (2021) · Studies in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64949-4_1 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., Luss, R., Doshi-Velez, F., & Dhurandhar, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21995 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Bell, A., Nov, O., & Stoyanovich, J. (2023) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2023.8 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: “Unexplainable” Legal and Ethical Challenges?
Lang, M., Bernier, A., & Knoppers, B. M. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.10.009 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Eisbach, S., Mai, O., & Hertel, G. (2024) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101077 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Preece, A., Harborne, D., Braines, D., Tomsett, R., & Chakraborty, S.
- Affiliations
- IBM (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1810.00184
- OpenAlex
- W2894495420
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- explainable AI, interpretability, stakeholder communities, verification and validation, epistemology
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
