arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2212.11136

It is not "accuracy vs. explainability" -- we need both for trustworthy AI systems

D. Petkovic
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We are witnessing the emergence of an AI economy and society where AI technologies are increasingly impacting health care, business, transportation and many aspects of everyday life. Many successes have been reported where AI systems even surpassed the accuracy of human experts. However, AI systems may produce errors, can exhibit bias, may be sensitive to noise in the data, and often lack technical and judicial transparency resulting in reduction in trust and challenges in their adoption. These recent shortcomings and concerns have been documented in scientific but also in general press such as accidents with self driving cars, biases in healthcare, hiring and face recognition systems for people of color, seemingly correct medical decisions later found to be made due to wrong reasons etc. This resulted in emergence of many government and regulatory initiatives requiring trustworthy and ethical AI to provide accuracy and robustness, some form of explainability, human control and oversight, elimination of bias, judicial transparency and safety. The challenges in delivery of trustworthy AI systems motivated intense research on explainable AI systems (XAI). Aim of XAI is to provide human understandable information of how AI systems make their decisions. In this paper we first briefly summarize current XAI work and then challenge the recent arguments of accuracy vs. explainability for being mutually exclusive and being focused only on deep learning. We then present our recommendations for the use of XAI in full lifecycle of high stakes trustworthy AI systems delivery, e.g. development, validation and certification, and trustworthy production and maintenance.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AIcs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

D. Petkovic. 2022-12-16. It is not "accuracy vs. explainability" -- we need both for trustworthy AI systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11136

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗