Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Position: Explain to Question not to Justify

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 2402.13914 v2 pith:LJNFACMQ submitted 2024-02-21 cs.AI cs.CRcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CRcs.LG
keywords areamodelscurrentlyexplanationsfieldpositionpromisingquestion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a young but very promising field of research. Unfortunately, the progress in this field is currently slowed down by divergent and incompatible goals. We separate various threads tangled within the area of XAI into two complementary cultures of human/value-oriented explanations (BLUE XAI) and model/validation-oriented explanations (RED XAI). This position paper argues that the area of RED XAI is currently under-explored, i.e., more methods for explainability are desperately needed to question models (e.g., extract knowledge from well-performing models as well as spotting and fixing bugs in faulty models), and the area of RED XAI hides great opportunities and potential for important research necessary to ensure the safety of AI systems. We conclude this paper by presenting promising challenges in this area.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Making Sense of the Unsensible: Reflection, Survey, and Challenges for XAI in Large Language Models Toward Human-Centered AI

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey and position paper proposing faithfulness, truthfulness, plausibility, and contrastivity as four core dimensions of LLM explainability and arguing for governance-ready, audience-sensitive XAI.

  2. Opacity as a Feature, Not a Flaw: The LoBOX Governance Ethic for Role-Sensitive Explainability and Institutional Trust in AI

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A conceptual framework, LoBOX, proposes three stages, reduce accidental opacity, bound irreducible opacity, and delegate trust to institutions, to make opaque AI ethically accountable without full transparency.

Pith tools