It is not "accuracy vs. explainability" -- we need both for trustworthy AI systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Dec 2022.
Builds on
10 of 43 references.
References · 10
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 488
- 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 163
- 2020Interpretable Machine Learning -- A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challengescited by 120
- 2017Towards Interpretable Deep Neural Networks by Leveraging Adversarial Examplescited by 27
- 2017Data-driven Advice for Applying Machine Learning to Bioinformatics Problemscited by 16
- 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitationscited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2023Implementing Responsible AI: Tensions and Trade-Offs Between Ethics Aspectscited by 5
- 2025Structured Reasoning for Fairness: A Multi-Agent Approach to Bias Detection in Textual Datacited by 2
- 2024zIA: a GenAI-powered local auntie assists tourists in Italycited by 0
- 2026SHARP: Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles for Measuring Inequities in Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Insurance as AI Risk Infrastructure: A Generative-Agent Simulation of AI Adoptioncited by 0
- 2026Insurance as AI Risk Infrastructure: A Generative-Agent Simulation of AI Adoption15 Aug 2026
- 2026SHARP: Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles for Measuring Inequities in Large Language Models29 Jan 2026
- 2025Structured Reasoning for Fairness: A Multi-Agent Approach to Bias Detection in Textual Data1 Mar 2025
- 2024zIA: a GenAI-powered local auntie assists tourists in Italy16 Jul 2024
- 2023Implementing Responsible AI: Tensions and Trade-Offs Between Ethics Aspects17 Apr 2023