Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bridging the Transparency Gap: What Can Explainable AI Learn From the AI Act?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.10766 v5 pith:62V4UASR submitted 2023-02-21 cs.AI cs.CY

classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords transparencyregulationviewsbridgedifferenceeuropeanexplainableissues
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The European Union has proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act which introduces detailed requirements of transparency for AI systems. Many of these requirements can be addressed by the field of explainable AI (XAI), however, there is a fundamental difference between XAI and the Act regarding what transparency is. The Act views transparency as a means that supports wider values, such as accountability, human rights, and sustainable innovation. In contrast, XAI views transparency narrowly as an end in itself, focusing on explaining complex algorithmic properties without considering the socio-technical context. We call this difference the ``transparency gap''. Failing to address the transparency gap, XAI risks leaving a range of transparency issues unaddressed. To begin to bridge this gap, we overview and clarify the terminology of how XAI and European regulation -- the Act and the related General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) -- view basic definitions of transparency. By comparing the disparate views of XAI and regulation, we arrive at four axes where practical work could bridge the transparency gap: defining the scope of transparency, clarifying the legal status of XAI, addressing issues with conformity assessment, and building explainability for datasets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Against Explainable Artificial Intelligence In Law: Why Justifiable Ai Matters. A Credit Scoring Example

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper rejects technical explainability as the standard for consumer credit decisions and argues for a legal justification standard it calls 'justifiable AI'.

Pith tools