Uncertainty Awareness and Trust in Explainable AI- On Trust Calibration using Local and Global Explanations

Explainable AI has become a common term in the literature, scrutinized by computer scientists and statisticians and highlighted by psychological or philosophical researchers. One major effort many researchers tackle is constructing general guidelines for XAI schemes, which we derived from our study. While some areas of XAI are well studied, we focus on uncertainty explanations and consider global explanations, which are often left out. We chose an algorithm that covers various concepts simultaneously, such as uncertainty, robustness, and global XAI, and tested its ability to calibrate trust. We then checked whether an algorithm that aims to provide more of an intuitive visual understanding, despite being complicated to understand, can provide higher user satisfaction and human interpretability.

Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integral to economy and society, communication gaps between developers, users, and stakeholders hinder trust and informed decision-making. High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent. Without requiring deep technical expertise, they can inform on the trade-off between predictive performance and resource efficiency. However, the practical benefits and limitations of AI labeling remain underexplored. This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions. Based on thematic analysis and inductive coding, we found a broad range of practitioners to be interested in AI labeling (RQ1). They see benefits for alleviating communication gaps and aiding non-expert decision-makers, however limitations, misunderstandings, and suggestions for improvement were also discussed (RQ2). Compared to other reporting formats, interviewees positively evaluated the reduced complexity of labels, increasing overall comprehensibility (RQ3). Trust was influenced most by usability and the credibility of the responsible labeling authority, with mixed preferences for self-certification versus third-party certification (RQ4). Our Insights highlight that AI labels pose a trade-off between simplicity and complexity, which could be resolved by developing customizable and interactive labeling frameworks to address diverse user needs. Transparent labeling of resource efficiency also nudged interviewee priorities towards paying more attention to sustainability aspects during AI development. This study validates AI labels as a valuable tool for enhancing trust and communication in AI, offering actionable guidelines for their refinement and standardization.