The debate about the concept of the so called right to explanation in AI is the subject of a wealth of literature. It has focused, in the legal scholarship, on art. 22 GDPR and, in the technical scholarship, on techniques that help explain the output of a certain model (XAI). The purpose of this work is to investigate if the new provisions introduced by the proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act), in combination with Convention 108 plus and GDPR, are enough to indicate the existence of a right to technical explainability in the EU legal framework and, if not, whether the EU should include it in its current legislation. This is a preliminary work submitted to the online event organised by the Information Society Law Center and it will be later developed into a full paper.

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead Rudin et al., arXiv 2019 It's pretty clear from the title alone what Cynthia Rudin would like us to do! The paper is a mix of technical and philosophical arguments and comes with two main takeaways for me: firstly, a sharpening of my understanding of the difference between explainability and interpretability, and why the former may be problematic; and secondly some great pointers to techniques for creating truly interpretable models. A model can be a black box for one of two reasons: (a) the function that the model computes is far too complicated for any human to comprehend, or (b) the model may in actual fact be simple, but its details are proprietary and not available for inspection. In explainable ML we make predictions using a complicated black box model (e.g., a DNN), and use a second (posthoc) model created to explain what the first model is doing. A classic example here is LIME, which explores a local area of a complex model to uncover decision boundaries.

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead Rudin et al., arXiv 2019 It's pretty clear from the title alone what Cynthia Rudin would like us to do! The paper is a mix of technical and philosophical arguments and comes with two main takeaways for me: firstly, a sharpening of my understanding of the difference between explainability and interpretability, and why the former may be problematic; and secondly some great pointers to techniques for creating truly interpretable models. A model can be a black box for one of two reasons: (a) the function that the model computes is far too complicated for any human to comprehend, or (b) the model may in actual fact be simple, but its details are proprietary and not available for inspection. In explainable ML we make predictions using a complicated black box model (e.g., a DNN), and use a second (posthoc) model created to explain what the first model is doing. A classic example here is LIME, which explores a local area of a complex model to uncover decision boundaries.

Black box machine learning models are currently being used for high-stakes decision making throughout society, causing problems in healthcare, criminal justice and other domains. Some people hope that creating methods for explaining these black box models will alleviate some of the problems, but trying to explain black box models, rather than creating models that are interpretable in the first place, is likely to perpetuate bad practice and can potentially cause great harm to society. The way forward is to design models that are inherently interpretable. This Perspective clarifies the chasm between explaining black boxes and using inherently interpretable models, outlines several key reasons why explainable black boxes should be avoided in high-stakes decisions, identifies challenges to interpretable machine learning, and provides several example applications where interpretable models could potentially replace black box models in criminal justice, healthcare and computer vision.