Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Desiderata for Explainable AI in statistical production systems of the European Central Bank

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 2107.08045 v2 pith:NFFIZF6D submitted 2021-07-18 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

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

Explainable AI constitutes a fundamental step towards establishing fairness and addressing bias in algorithmic decision-making. Despite the large body of work on the topic, the benefit of solutions is mostly evaluated from a conceptual or theoretical point of view and the usefulness for real-world use cases remains uncertain. In this work, we aim to state clear user-centric desiderata for explainable AI reflecting common explainability needs experienced in statistical production systems of the European Central Bank. We link the desiderata to archetypical user roles and give examples of techniques and methods which can be used to address the user's needs. To this end, we provide two concrete use cases from the domain of statistical data production in central banks: the detection of outliers in the Centralised Securities Database and the data-driven identification of data quality checks for the Supervisory Banking data system.

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