Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Contribution of XAI for the Safe Development and Certification of AI: An Expert-Based Analysis

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 2408.02379 v2 pith:BZBRFPJI submitted 2024-07-22 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords certificationsafedevelopmentmethodsblack-boxcertifyingpotentialsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.

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. Explainable AI for the EU Right to Explanation: A Systematic Review of the Law-XAI Translation Gap

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 57 post-2024 papers shows only 19 integrate EU law and XAI, most misidentify the GDPR basis, and the authors propose an addressee/purpose framework and a four-phase operationalization blueprint.

Pith tools