Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Timo Speith

Publications and source records attributed to Timo Speith.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2025

Deepfakes in Criminal Investigations: Interdisciplinary Research Directions for CMC Research

The emergence of deepfake technologies offers both opportunities and significant challenges. While commonly associated with deception, misinformation, and fraud, deepfakes may also enable novel applications in high-stakes contexts such as criminal investigations. However, these applications raise complex technological, ethical, and legal questions. We adopt an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on computer science, philosophy, and law, to examine what it takes to responsibly use deepfakes in criminal investigations and argue that computer-mediated communication (CMC) research, especially based on social media corpora, can provide crucial insights for understanding the potential harms and benefits of deepfakes. Our analysis outlines key research directions for the CMC community and underscores the need for interdisciplinary collaboration in this evolving domain.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2025

What Makes for a Good Saliency Map? Comparing Strategies for Evaluating Saliency Maps in Explainable AI (XAI)

Saliency maps are a popular approach for explaining classifications of (convolutional) neural networks. However, it remains an open question as to how best to evaluate salience maps, with three families of evaluation methods commonly being used: subjective user measures, objective user measures, and mathematical metrics. We examine three of the most popular saliency map approaches (viz., LIME, Grad-CAM, and Guided Backpropagation) in a between subject study (N=166) across these families of evaluation methods. We test 1) for subjective measures, if the maps differ with respect to user trust and satisfaction; 2) for objective measures, if the maps increase users' abilities and thus understanding of a model; 3) for mathematical metrics, which map achieves the best ratings across metrics; and 4) whether the mathematical metrics can be associated with objective user measures. To our knowledge, our study is the first to compare several salience maps across all these evaluation methods$-$with the finding that they do not agree in their assessment (i.e., there was no difference concerning trust and satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved users' abilities best, and Guided Backpropagation had the most favorable mathematical metrics). Additionally, we show that some mathematical metrics were associated with user understanding, although this relationship was often counterintuitive. We discuss these findings in light of general debates concerning the complementary use of user studies and mathematical metrics in the evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2025

On the Need to Rethink Trust in AI Assistants for Software Development: A Critical Review

Trust is a fundamental concept in human decision-making and collaboration that has long been studied in philosophy and psychology. However, software engineering (SE) articles often use the term trust informally; providing an explicit definition or embedding results in established trust models is rare. In SE research on AI assistants, this practice culminates in equating trust with the likelihood of accepting generated content, which, in isolation, does not capture the full conceptual complexity of trust. Without a common definition, true secondary research on trust is impossible. The objectives of our research were: (1) to present the psychological and philosophical foundations of human trust, (2) to systematically study how trust is conceptualized in SE and the related disciplines human-computer interaction and information systems, and (3) to discuss limitations of equating trust with content acceptance, outlining how SE research can adopt existing trust models to overcome the widespread informal use of the term trust. We conducted a literature review across disciplines and a critical review of recent SE articles with a focus on trust conceptualizations. We found that trust is rarely defined or conceptualized in SE articles. Related disciplines commonly embed their methodology and results in established trust models, clearly distinguishing, for example, between initial trust and trust formation and between appropriate and inappropriate trust. On a meta-scientific level, other disciplines even discuss whether and when trust can be applied to AI assistants at all. Our study reveals a significant maturity gap of trust research in SE compared to other disciplines. We provide concrete recommendations on how SE researchers can adopt established trust models and instruments to study trust in AI assistants beyond the acceptance of generated software artifacts.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2025

"Make the Voodoo Box Go Bleep Bloop:" Exploring End Users' Understanding and Information Needs Regarding Microchips

Microchips are fundamental components of modern electronic devices, yet they remain opaque to the users who rely on them daily. This opacity, compounded by the complexity of global supply chains and the concealment of proprietary information, raises significant security, trust, and accountability issues. We investigate end users' understanding of microchips, exploring their perceptions of the societal implications and information needs regarding these essential technologies. Through an online survey with 250 participants, we found that while our participants were aware of some microchip applications, they lacked awareness of the broader security, societal, and economic implications. While our participants unanimously desired more information on microchips, their specific information needs were shaped by various factors such as the microchip's application environment and one's affinity for technology interaction. Our findings underscore the necessity for improving end users' awareness and understanding of microchips, and we provide possible directions to pursue this end.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

Mapping the Potential of Explainable AI for Fairness Along the AI Lifecycle

The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems across various domains is increasingly surfacing issues related to algorithmic fairness, especially in high-stakes scenarios. Thus, critical considerations of how fairness in AI systems might be improved -- and what measures are available to aid this process -- are overdue. Many researchers and policymakers see explainable AI (XAI) as a promising way to increase fairness in AI systems. However, there is a wide variety of XAI methods and fairness conceptions expressing different desiderata, and the precise connections between XAI and fairness remain largely nebulous. Besides, different measures to increase algorithmic fairness might be applicable at different points throughout an AI system's lifecycle. Yet, there currently is no coherent mapping of fairness desiderata along the AI lifecycle. In this paper, we we distill eight fairness desiderata, map them along the AI lifecycle, and discuss how XAI could help address each of them. We hope to provide orientation for practical applications and to inspire XAI research specifically focused on these fairness desiderata.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2023

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directions

As systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications, understanding these black box models has become paramount. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper not only highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios but also addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts from diverse fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. Our goal is to put forward a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 27 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Sources of Opacity in Computer Systems: Towards a Comprehensive Taxonomy

Modern computer systems are ubiquitous in contemporary life yet many of them remain opaque. This poses significant challenges in domains where desiderata such as fairness or accountability are crucial. We suggest that the best strategy for achieving system transparency varies depending on the specific source of opacity prevalent in a given context. Synthesizing and extending existing discussions, we propose a taxonomy consisting of eight sources of opacity that fall into three main categories: architectural, analytical, and socio-technical. For each source, we provide initial suggestions as to how to address the resulting opacity in practice. The taxonomy provides a starting point for requirements engineers and other practitioners to understand contextually prevalent sources of opacity, and to select or develop appropriate strategies for overcoming them.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2023

Revisiting the Performance-Explainability Trade-Off in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Within the field of Requirements Engineering (RE), the increasing significance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in aligning AI-supported systems with user needs, societal expectations, and regulatory standards has garnered recognition. In general, explainability has emerged as an important non-functional requirement that impacts system quality. However, the supposed trade-off between explainability and performance challenges the presumed positive influence of explainability. If meeting the requirement of explainability entails a reduction in system performance, then careful consideration must be given to which of these quality aspects takes precedence and how to compromise between them. In this paper, we critically examine the alleged trade-off. We argue that it is best approached in a nuanced way that incorporates resource availability, domain characteristics, and considerations of risk. By providing a foundation for future research and best practices, this work aims to advance the field of RE for AI.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

A New Perspective on Evaluation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Within the field of Requirements Engineering (RE), the increasing significance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in aligning AI-supported systems with user needs, societal expectations, and regulatory standards has garnered recognition. In general, explainability has emerged as an important non-functional requirement that impacts system quality. However, the supposed trade-off between explainability and performance challenges the presumed positive influence of explainability. If meeting the requirement of explainability entails a reduction in system performance, then careful consideration must be given to which of these quality aspects takes precedence and how to compromise between them. In this paper, we critically examine the alleged trade-off. We argue that it is best approached in a nuanced way that incorporates resource availability, domain characteristics, and considerations of risk. By providing a foundation for future research and best practices, this work aims to advance the field of RE for AI.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Explainability as a Requirement for Hardware: Introducing Explainable Hardware (XHW)

In today's age of digital technology, ethical concerns regarding computing systems are increasing. While the focus of such concerns currently is on requirements for software, this article spotlights the hardware domain, specifically microchips. For example, the opaqueness of modern microchips raises security issues, as malicious actors can manipulate them, jeopardizing system integrity. As a consequence, governments invest substantially to facilitate a secure microchip supply chain. To combat the opaqueness of hardware, this article introduces the concept of Explainable Hardware (XHW). Inspired by and building on previous work on Explainable AI (XAI) and explainable software systems, we develop a framework for achieving XHW comprising relevant stakeholders, requirements they might have concerning hardware, and possible explainability approaches to meet these requirements. Through an exploratory survey among 18 hardware experts, we showcase applications of the framework and discover potential research gaps. Our work lays the foundation for future work and structured debates on XHW.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2022

How to Evaluate Explainability? -- A Case for Three Criteria

The increasing complexity of software systems and the influence of software-supported decisions in our society have sparked the need for software that is safe, reliable, and fair. Explainability has been identified as a means to achieve these qualities. It is recognized as an emerging non-functional requirement (NFR) that has a significant impact on system quality. However, in order to develop explainable systems, we need to understand when a system satisfies this NFR. To this end, appropriate evaluation methods are required. However, the field is crowded with evaluation methods, and there is no consensus on which are the "right" ones. Much less, there is not even agreement on which criteria should be evaluated. In this vision paper, we will provide a multidisciplinary motivation for three such quality criteria concerning the information that systems should provide: comprehensibility, fidelity, and assessability. Our aim is to to fuel the discussion regarding these criteria, such that adequate evaluation methods for them will be conceived.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2021

On the Relation of Trust and Explainability: Why to Engineer for Trustworthiness

Recently, requirements for the explainability of software systems have gained prominence. One of the primary motivators for such requirements is that explainability is expected to facilitate stakeholders' trust in a system. Although this seems intuitively appealing, recent psychological studies indicate that explanations do not necessarily facilitate trust. Thus, explainability requirements might not be suitable for promoting trust. One way to accommodate this finding is, we suggest, to focus on trustworthiness instead of trust. While these two may come apart, we ideally want both: a trustworthy system and the stakeholder's trust. In this paper, we argue that even though trustworthiness does not automatically lead to trust, there are several reasons to engineer primarily for trustworthiness -- and that a system's explainability can crucially contribute to its trustworthiness.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2021

Exploring Explainability: A Definition, a Model, and a Knowledge Catalogue

The growing complexity of software systems and the influence of software-supported decisions in our society awoke the need for software that is transparent, accountable, and trustworthy. Explainability has been identified as a means to achieve these qualities. It is recognized as an emerging non-functional requirement (NFR) that has a significant impact on system quality. However, in order to incorporate this NFR into systems, we need to understand what explainability means from a software engineering perspective and how it impacts other quality aspects in a system. This allows for an early analysis of the benefits and possible design issues that arise from interrelationships between different quality aspects. Nevertheless, explainability is currently under-researched in the domain of requirements engineering and there is a lack of conceptual models and knowledge catalogues that support the requirements engineering process and system design. In this work, we bridge this gap by proposing a definition, a model, and a catalogue for explainability. They illustrate how explainability interacts with other quality aspects and how it may impact various quality dimensions of a system. To this end, we conducted an interdisciplinary Systematic Literature Review and validated our findings with experts in workshops.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2021

Explainability Auditing for Intelligent Systems: A Rationale for Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives

National and international guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) consider explainability to be a central facet of trustworthy systems. This paper outlines a multi-disciplinary rationale for explainability auditing. Specifically, we propose that explainability auditing can ensure the quality of explainability of systems in applied contexts and can be the basis for certification as a means to communicate whether systems meet certain explainability standards and requirements. Moreover, we emphasize that explainability auditing needs to take a multi-disciplinary perspective, and we provide an overview of four perspectives (technical, psychological, ethical, legal) and their respective benefits with respect to explainability auditing.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2021

What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research

Previous research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) suggests that a main aim of explainability approaches is to satisfy specific interests, goals, expectations, needs, and demands regarding artificial systems (we call these stakeholders' desiderata) in a variety of contexts. However, the literature on XAI is vast, spreads out across multiple largely disconnected disciplines, and it often remains unclear how explainability approaches are supposed to achieve the goal of satisfying stakeholders' desiderata. This paper discusses the main classes of stakeholders calling for explainability of artificial systems and reviews their desiderata. We provide a model that explicitly spells out the main concepts and relations necessary to consider and investigate when evaluating, adjusting, choosing, and developing explainability approaches that aim to satisfy stakeholders' desiderata. This model can serve researchers from the variety of different disciplines involved in XAI as a common ground. It emphasizes where there is interdisciplinary potential in the evaluation and the development of explainability approaches.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2019

Towards a Framework Combining Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability

We find ourselves surrounded by a rapidly increasing number of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. Two grand challenges arise from this development: Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability. Machine Ethics, on the one hand, is concerned with behavioral constraints for systems, so that morally acceptable, restricted behavior results; Machine Explainability, on the other hand, enables systems to explain their actions and argue for their decisions, so that human users can understand and justifiably trust them. In this paper, we try to motivate and work towards a framework combining Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability. Starting from a toy example, we detect various desiderata of such a framework and argue why they should and how they could be incorporated in autonomous systems. Our main idea is to apply a framework of formal argumentation theory both, for decision-making under ethical constraints and for the task of generating useful explanations given only limited knowledge of the world. The result of our deliberations can be described as a first version of an ethically motivated, principle-governed framework combining Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability

cs.AI↗