arXiv:2506.01662cs.CYcs.AI2025-06被引 7

为可解释AI系统设计可争议性框架,让监管要求落地

Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen

  • 提出可争议性的正式定义与模块化实现框架
  • 构建包含20多个指标的可争议性评估量表
  • 通过案例验证框架有效性,助力合规落地

随着全球对AI系统安全的关注加剧,可争议性已成为强制性但定义模糊的安全保障。在可解释AI领域,'可争议性'仍是一句空话:缺乏正式定义、无算法保障、从业者亦无具体指导以满足监管要求。基于系统的文献综述,本文首次提出与利益相关方需求和监管要求直接对齐的可解释AI中可争议性的严谨形式化定义。我们引入一个模块化框架,涵盖以人为本的界面、技术架构、法律流程及组织工作流中的事前与事后机制。为实现该框架,我们提出可争议性评估量表(Contestability Assessment Scale),其基于二十多项定量标准。通过跨多个应用领域的案例研究,我们揭示了现有先进系统在可争议性上的不足,并展示如何通过本框架推动针对性改进。本研究将可争议性从监管理论转化为可操作框架,使实践者能够真正嵌入申诉与问责机制。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

As AI regulations around the world intensify their focus on system safety, contestability has become a mandatory, yet ill-defined, safeguard. In XAI, "contestability" remains an empty promise: no formal definition exists, no algorithm guarantees it, and practitioners lack concrete guidance to satisfy regulatory requirements. Grounded in a systematic literature review, this paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI, directly aligned with stakeholder requirements and regulatory mandates. We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical architectures, legal processes, and organizational workflows. To operationalize our framework, we propose the Contestability Assessment Scale, a composite metric built on more than twenty quantitative criteria. Through multiple case studies across diverse application domains, we reveal where state-of-the-art systems fall short and show how our framework drives targeted improvements. By converting contestability from regulatory theory into a practical framework, our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.

可解释AI可争议性监管合规

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。