Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Stakeholders in Explainable AI

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 1810.00184 v1 pith:N5X2MPEM submitted 2018-09-29 cs.AI

Stakeholders in Explainable AI

classification cs.AI
keywords communitiesconsensusexplainablethereconcernsgeneralinterpretablestakeholder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Interpretability from the Ground Up: Stakeholder-Centric Design of Automated Scoring in Educational Assessments

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AnalyticScore applies new FGTI interpretability principles to text-based scoring and achieves accuracy within 0.06 QWK of uninterpretable state-of-the-art while matching human featurization on the ASAP-SAS dataset.

  2. Quantifying Transparency of Machine Learning Systems through Analysis of Contributions

    cs.LG 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A method is presented for calculating a transparency metric for ML model pipelines by analyzing the visibility of contributions from data sources and human developers.

  3. Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility of Artificial Intelligence

    cs.CY 2019-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Advanced AI systems are unexplainable in full and produce explanations that humans cannot comprehend.