The DOI matches its Crossref record; 171 of the 173 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There can be multiple ways of making data and code accessible, and there can be multiple ways to justify a decision and different degrees of transparency in the decision (Miller 2019; Mittelstadt et al. 2019).”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Miller 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For instance, machine-learning algorithms can be programmed in a way they can explain based on what data and which decision rules certain predictions were reached, this is called explainable AI (xAI).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Miller 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Also, user experience (UX) in XAI, specifically Human-AI collaborative decision-making, may require more attention than the explanation ease of use [47].”
From Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Some users prefer a detailed explanation, while others need a brief explanation based on their curiosity level [47].”
From Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“To the best of our knowledge, there is little to no empirical research on the effectiveness of these two humancentered explanations derived from the literature (i.e., Adadi and Berrada, 2018) using Miller's criteria in fostering end-users' trust in AI.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Counterfactuals combine Miller's selectivity and contrastivity criteria.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“we identified feature importance explanations and counterfactual explanations as two promising post-hoc explanations for achieving HCXAI.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Social science literature suggests that natural human explanations are predominantly qualitative [63]-while people may have an intuition about which feature is relevant to the decision, or which feature is more relevant than another, they may not be able to articulate a precise quantification.”
From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Tim Miller argues for the situation of AI explanations within social and human sciences literature on cognition and decision making, given that the problems XAI addresses are fundamentally those of the relationships between people rather than people and technology [ 43 ].”
From Positioning Paradata: A Conceptual Frame for AI Processual Documentation in Archives and Recordkeeping Contexts (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“HCI skills such as philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science have proven their worth in the field of XAI by developing explanations that were able to stimulate the human explanation process [89].”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [89]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In addition, they state that explanations are selective , meaning that focusing solely on the main causes of a decision-making process is sufficient.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Explanations that explicitly contrast correct diagnoses against plausible alternatives (contrastive explanations) may be particularly valuable for teaching differential diagnosis skills [159].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [159]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This finding challenges the common belief that counterfactual explanations, which simulate AI reasoning, are easily understandable and enhance trust [24].”
From AI Trust: Can Explainable AI Enhance Warranted Trust? (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Interventions that cue users to reflect on their goals and strategies via question prompts or conversational interfaces have been shown to improve outcomes in the workplace [92,122,209], education [51], and other domains [17,147].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [122]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, further complications are introduced when AI systems produce outputs in interaction with humans or other AI or complex sociotechnical systems (Borrego-Díaz & Galán-Páez, 2022;Miller, 2019).”
From Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm (2025) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Most of the empirical research on algorithmic transparency has focused on the how, reflected in the explainability, interpretability and, ultimately, in the observability of algorithms (Miller, 2019;Robert et al., 2020;Shin, 2021;Shin & Park, 2019).”
From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“xAI refers to the explainability of specific decisions, but can also refer to how a model works and develops (e.g., Miller 2019).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Miller 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Such explanations thus satisfy the selectivity criterion proposed by Miller (2019) because they show how certain factors influenced a decision.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, studies show that many XAI methods are designed according to developers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation, rather than actual insights into users' needs [73].”
From Explainable AI for Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review, Key Gaps, and Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [73]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Much of the literature still speaks in subjective terms of 'good' or 'quality' explanations [73], often without measuring how well those explanations integrate into clinicians' decision-making processes.”
From Explainable AI for Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review, Key Gaps, and Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [73]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The human trait of explaining the underlying reasoning behind a decision and applying this same logic and requirement in the context of AI is complex (Miller 2019).”
From Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy (2021) · cites this paper as Miller 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“First, explanations are better when constrictive , meaning that a prerequisite for a good explanation is that it does not only indicate why the model made a decision X, but also why it made decision X rather than decision Y.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is also explained that probabilities are not as important as causal links in order to provide a satisfying explanation.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The concept of what defines a good explanation is not trivial and is an aspect that is widely studied in the literature (Miller, 2019; Holzinger et al., 2020).”
From Understanding user mental models in AI-driven code completion tools: Insights from an elicitation study (2025) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In an important contribution, Miller (2019) emphasises the importance of respecting explanatory practices as people experience them-in particular that good explanations are contrastive, i.e. that”
From Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm (2025) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019, p. 3
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“social functions have to do with building or maintaining interpersonal relationships, creating shared meaning (Miller, 2019), and with supporting actions or societal practices (e.g.excusing or blaming others, or responding to decisions that affect one) (Mittelstadt et al., 2019;Wachter et al., 2018).”
From Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm (2025) · cites this paper as Miller, 2019
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The rapid growth of AI has accelerated discoveries across diverse scientific fields and affected every work environment [62–65] and is reshaping the labor market with unprecedented speed and scale, with 40% of the global workforce expected to require AI, enhancing the need for significant AI upskilling or reskilling [66].”
From Use of artificial intelligence in critical care: opportunities and obstacles (2024) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Also, creating AI with the ability to explain and justify its decision-making process [5,38,44] could increase the end-users willingness to accept the AI's recommendations [53,55].”
From Being Trustworthy is Not Enough: How Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Deceive the End-Users and Gain Their Trust (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“In three studies [67], [128], [137], the classifiers used in the experiments are not specified.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“Contfactual explanations, as a mixture of tabular and visual output representations, appear also in an augmented reality framework [137].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“However, the two aforementioned studies [128], [137] lack an evaluation of the quality of the generated contfactual explanations themselves.”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“Miller argues that a good explanation is contrastive, selective, and truthful.”
From Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Beyond saliency-based XAI approaches (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“However, some research asserts that this approach is the most intuitive for human users to comprehend [7].”
From Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Beyond saliency-based XAI approaches (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“because humans tend to devalue explanations that contradict their prior beliefs.”
From Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Beyond saliency-based XAI approaches (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“which are not only intuitively understandable for humans [7]”
From Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Beyond saliency-based XAI approaches (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Generative AI can provide personalized learning plans and tools based on students' individual needs and learning styles to improve learning efficiency and effectiveness.”
From Generative artificial intelligence empowers educational reform: current status, issues, and prospects (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2017
In the citing paper
“However, this personalized learning can also lead to unfair outcomes, as different students may face different opportunities and challenges.”
From Generative artificial intelligence empowers educational reform: current status, issues, and prospects (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2017
In the citing paper
“In addition, if generative AI models only focus on students' individual needs and interests, and ignore some important learning objectives and standards, this may also lead to students' knowledge and skills being less comprehensive and in-depth (Miller, 2017).”
From Generative artificial intelligence empowers educational reform: current status, issues, and prospects (2023) · cites this paper as Miller, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
The psychology of interpersonal relations
Heider, F. (1958) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089062 · Cited by 17,189
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
“Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-3020 · Cited by 6,682
Marr, D. (1982) · Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design · Cited by 5,733
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340 · Cited by 5,427
(1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,269
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Halpern, J. Y. (1994) · Mathematical Social Sciences · doi:10.1016/0165-4896(94)90005-1 · Cited by 3,620
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 173 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Angwin, 2016, Machine bias, ProPublica
- Causation, 1974, J. Philos., 70, 556
- McClure, 2003, The role of goal-based explanations, vol. 5, 306
- Peirce, 1903, Harvard lectures on pragmatism, vol. 5
- Van Fraassen, 1977, The pragmatics of explanation, Am. Philos. Q., 14, 143
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 1,050
Crowdsourcing Perceptions of Fair Predictors for Machine Learning
van Berkel, N., Gonçalves, J., Hettiachchi, D., Wijenayake, S., Kelly, R., & Kostakos, V. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359130 · Cited by 74
Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attribution
Jacovi, A., & Goldberg, Y. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00367 · Cited by 85
A machine learning damage prediction model for the 2017 Puebla‐Morelos, Mexico, earthquake
Roeslin, S., Ma, Q., Juárez-García, H., Gómez-Bernal, A., Wicker, J. S., & Wotherspoon, L. M. (2020) · Earthquake Spectra · doi:10.1177/8755293020936714 · Cited by 75
Addressing Algorithmic Bias in AI-Driven Customer Management
Akter, S., Dwivedi, Y. K., Biswas, K., Michael, K., Bandara, R. J., & Sajib, S. (2021) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.20211101.oa3 · Cited by 98
Conceptual challenges for interpretable machine learning
Watson, D. S. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03485-5 · Cited by 87
Stef, N., Başağaoğlu, H., Chakraborty, D., & Jabeur, S. B. (2023) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106822 · Cited by 76
Eke, C. I., & Shuib, L. M. (2024) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-024-10868-x · Cited by 103
Standards, frameworks, and legislation for artificial intelligence (AI) transparency
Lund, B. D., Orhan, Z., Mannuru, N. R., Bevara, R. V. K., Porter, B., Vinaih, M. K., & Bhaskara, P. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00661-4 · Cited by 101
Explaining machine learning reveals policy challenges
Coyle, D., & Weller, A. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aba9647 · Cited by 74
The Emerging Landscape of Explainable Automated Planning & Decision Making
Chakraborti, T., Sreedharan, S., & Subbarao Kambhampati, B. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/669 · Cited by 123
Scenario-Based Requirements Elicitation for User-Centric Explainable AI - A Case in Fraud Detection
Cirqueira, D., Nedbal, D., Helfert, M., & Bezbradica, M. (2020) · International Cross-Domain Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57321-8_18 · Cited by 74
Counterfactual Shapley Additive Explanations
Albini, E., Long, J., Dervovic, D., & Magazzeni, D. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533168 · Cited by 86
Interpretability in the medical field: A systematic mapping and review study
Hakkoum, H., Abnane, I., & Idri, A. (2021) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108391 · Cited by 82
Farah, L., Murris, J., Borget, I., Guilloux, A., Martelli, N., & Katsahian, S. (2023) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health · doi:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2023.02.004 · Cited by 83
Robo-advisors and investment intention: A perspective of value-based adoption
Hong, X., Pan, L., Gong, Y. Y., & Chen, Q. (2023) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2023.103832 · Cited by 90
Pelegrina, G. D., Duarte, L. T., & Michel Grabisch, B. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2023.104014 · Cited by 82
Huang, F., Mao, D., Jiang, S., Zhou, C., Fan, X., Zeng, Z., Catani, F., Yu, C., Chang, Z., Huang, J., et al. (2024) · Geoscience Frontiers · doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101886 · Cited by 80
Irfan, B., Kuoppamäki, S., Hosseini, A., & Skantze, G. (2025) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1007/s10514-025-10190-y · Cited by 92
A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospectsPreprint
Karimi, A.-H., Barthe, G., Schölkopf, B., & Valera, I. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04050 · Cited by 74
Uncertainty-aware deep learning in healthcare: A scoping review
Loftus, T. J., Shickel, B., Ruppert, M. M., Balch, J. A., Ozrazgat-Baslanti, T., Tighe, P. J., Efron, P. A., Hogan, W. R., Rashidi, P., Upchurch, G. R., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000085 · Cited by 73
Measurable Counterfactual Local Explanations for Any Classifier
Adam, W., & Artur, D. G. (2020) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia200387 · Cited by 115
Cultural Bias in Explainable AI Research: A Systematic Analysis
Peters, U., & Carman, M. (2024) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.14888 · Cited by 95
Computational Foundations of Natural Intelligence
van Gerven, M. A. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2017.00112 · Cited by 76
Quantifying Interpretability and Trust in Machine Learning SystemsPreprint
Schmidt, P. S., & Bießmann, F. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.08558 · Cited by 74
A Disentangling Invertible Interpretation Network for Explaining Latent Representations
Esser, P., Rombach, R., & Ommer, B. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00924 · Cited by 72
Explainability pitfalls: beyond dark patterns in explainable AI
Ehsan, U., & Riedl, M. O. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100971 · Cited by 72
The explanation game: a formal framework for interpretable machine learning
Watson, D., & Floridi, L. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02629-9 · Cited by 81
Explanation Ontology: A Model of Explanations for User-Centered AI
Chari, S., Seneviratne, O. W., Gruen, D. M., Foreman, M. A., Das, A. K., & McGuinness, D. L. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_15 · Cited by 72
Park, H., Ahn, D., Hosanagar, K., & Lee, J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517672 · Cited by 92
Tsoka, T., Ye, X., Chen, Y., Gong, D., & Xia, X. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131626 · Cited by 72
Benk, M., Kerstan, S., von Wangenheim, F., & Ferrario, A. (2024) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02059-y · Cited by 101
Beyond explainability: justifiability and contestability of algorithmic decision systems
Henin, C., & Le Métayer, D. (2022) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01251-8 · Cited by 71
Metrics, Explainability and the European AI Act Proposal
Sovrano, F., Sapienza, S., Palmirani, M., & Vitali, F. (2022) · J · doi:10.3390/j5010010 · Cited by 71
Right for the Right Concept: Revising Neuro-Symbolic Concepts by Interacting with their Explanations
Stammer, W., Schramowski, P., & Kersting, K. (2021) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00362 · Cited by 73
Deb, D., & Smith, R. M. (2021) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi10090629 · Cited by 71
Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability using Sensemaking Theory
Kaur, H., Adar, E., Gilbert, É., & Lampe, C. A. C. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533135 · Cited by 88
Demystifying the black box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in bioinformatics
Budhkar, A., Song, Q., Su, J., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.12.027 · Cited by 90
Explainable Activity Recognition for Smart Home Systems
Das, D., Nishimura, Y., Vivek, R. P., Takeda, N., Fish, S. T., Plötz, T., & Chernova, S. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3561533 · Cited by 70
Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds
Lieto, A. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315460536 · Cited by 70
On the Relation of Trust and Explainability: Why to Engineer for Trustworthiness
Kastner, L., Langer, M., Lazar, V., Schomacker, A., Speith, T., & Sterz, S. (2021) · 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) · doi:10.1109/rew53955.2021.00031 · Cited by 61
AI Applications and Regulation: Mapping the Regulatory Strata
Viljanen, M., & Parviainen, H. (2022) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.779957 · Cited by 19
Behera, R. K., Bala, P. K., & Rana, N. P. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136605 · Cited by 70
Explanation matters: An experimental study on explainable AI
Hamm, P., Klesel, M., Coberger, P., & Wittmann, H. F. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00640-9 · Cited by 75
SoK: Explainable Machine Learning for Computer Security Applications
Nadeem, A., Vos, D., Cao, C., Pajola, L., Dieck, S., Baumgartner, R., & Verwer, S. (2023) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/eurosp57164.2023.00022 · Cited by 79
Artificial intelligence in classroom discourse: A systematic review of the past decade
Wang, D., Yang, T., & Chen, G. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102275 · Cited by 96
Unveiling the Mind of the Machine
Clegg, M., Hofstetter, R., de Bellis, E., & Schmitt, B. H. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad075 · Cited by 75
Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainabilityPreprint
Frye, C., Rowat, C., & Feige, I. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.06358 · Cited by 93
Dindorf, C., Teufl, W., Taetz, B., Bleser, G., & Fröhlich, M. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20164385 · Cited by 75
Recommender Systems: An Explainable AI Perspective
Vultureanu‐Albişi, A., & Bădică, C. (2021) · International Conference on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA) · doi:10.1109/inista52262.2021.9548125 · Cited by 70
A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Challenges
Hanif, A., Zhang, X., & Wood, S. (2021) · IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW) · doi:10.1109/edocw52865.2021.00036 · Cited by 76
The Role of HCI in the Age of AI
Harper, R. H. R. (2019) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1631527 · Cited by 68
Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration
Naiseh, M., Al-Thani, D., Jiang, N., & Ali, R. (2021) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-021-00916-0 · Cited by 68
“Some users prefer a detailed explanation, while others need a brief explanation based on their curiosity level [47].”
BackgroundCoCoX: Generating Conceptual and Counterfactual Explanations via Fault-Lines
Akula, A., Wang, S., & Zhu, S. C. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i03.5643 · Cited by 71
Counterfactual state explanations for reinforcement learning agents via generative deep learning
Olson, M., Khanna, R., Neal, L., Li, F., & Wong, W. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103455 · Cited by 80
Duell, J., Fan, X., Burnett, B., Gert Aarts, A., & Zhou, S. (2021) · IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI ...) · doi:10.1109/bhi50953.2021.9508618 · Cited by 74
Bove, C., Aigrain, J., Lesot, M., Tijus, C., & Detyniecki, M. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511139 · Cited by 68
Toward Explainable Affective Computing: A Review
Cortiñas-Lorenzo, K., & Lacey, G. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3270027 · Cited by 87
Ancajas, C. M. F., Oyedele, A. S., Butt, C. M., & Walker, A. S. (2024) · Natural Product Reports · doi:10.1039/d4np00009a · Cited by 75
A survey on outlier explanations
Panjei, E., Gruenwald, L., Leal, E., Nguyen, C., & Silvia, S. (2022) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-021-00721-1 · Cited by 67
Towards relatable explainable AI with the perceptual process
Zhang, W., & Lim, B. Y. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501826 · Cited by 67
AI, Explainability and Public Reason: The Argument from the Limitations of the Human Mind
Maclure, J. (2021) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-021-09570-x · Cited by 67
Industrial Processes Management for a Sustainable Society: Global Research Analysis
Abad‐Segura, E., Morales, M. E., Cortés‐García, F. J., & Ureña, L. J. B. (2020) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr8050631 · Cited by 69
On Tractable XAI Queries based on Compiled Representations
Audemard, G., Koriche, F., & Marquis, P. (2020) · International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning · doi:10.24963/kr.2020/86 · Cited by 90
Achieving Explainability of Intrusion Detection System by Hybrid Oracle-Explainer Approach
Szczepański, M., Choraś, M., Pawlicki, M., & Kozik, R. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9207199 · Cited by 67
Nagahisarchoghaei, M., Nur, N., Cummins, L., Nur, N., Karimi, M. M., Nandanwar, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Rahimi, S. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12051092 · Cited by 83
The effects of explanations on automation bias
Vered, M., Livni, T., Howe, P. D. L., Miller, T., & Sonenberg, L. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2023.103952 · Cited by 83
Self-citationToward interpretable LSTM-based modeling of hydrological systems
Fuente, L. D. L., Ehsani, M. R., Gupta, H. V., & Condon, L. E. (2024) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-28-945-2024 · Cited by 90
Explainable AI In Education : Current Trends, Challenges, And Opportunities
Rachha, A., & Seyam, M. (2023) · SoutheastCon 2023 · doi:10.1109/southeastcon51012.2023.10115140 · Cited by 68
The Next Generation of Medical Decision Support: A Roadmap Toward Transparent Expert Companions
Bruckert, S., Finzel, B., & Schmid, U. (2020) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2020.507973 · Cited by 66
Elenchezhian, M. R. P., Vadlamudi, V., Raihan, R., Reifsnider, K., & Reifsnider, E. S. (2021) · Smart Materials and Structures · doi:10.1088/1361-665x/ac099f · Cited by 74
Mullins, M., Holland, C. P., & Cunneen, M. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100362 · Cited by 77
Next generation DES simulation: A research agenda for human centric manufacturing systems
Turner, C. J., & Garn, W. (2022) · Journal of Industrial Information Integration · doi:10.1016/j.jii.2022.100354 · Cited by 70
AI for the public. How public interest theory shifts the discourse on AI
Züger, T., & Asghari, H. (2022) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01480-5 · Cited by 66
Tal, A. S., Kuflik, T., & Kliger, D. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2095705 · Cited by 73
Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering
Chicco, D., Oneto, L., & Tavazzi, E. (2022) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010718 · Cited by 86
Baroni, I., Re Calegari, G., Scandolari, D., & Celino, I. (2022) · Human Computation · doi:10.15346/hc.v9i1.134 · Cited by 65
Designing Human-Agent Collaborations: Commitment, responsiveness, and support
Cila, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517500 · Cited by 65
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Sarcasm Detection in Dialogues
Kumar, A., Dikshit, S., & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. (2021) · Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1155/2021/2939334 · Cited by 75
Cheng, S., Cheng, L., Qin, S., Zhang, L., Liu, P., Liu, L., Xu, Z., & Wang, Q. (2022) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2021wr031412 · Cited by 65
Monitoring machine learning models: a categorization of challenges and methods
Schröder, T., & Schulz, M. (2022) · Data Science and Management · doi:10.1016/j.dsm.2022.07.004 · Cited by 73
Explainable Machine Learning for Financial Distress Prediction: Evidence from Vietnam
Tran, K. L., Le, H. A., Nguyen, T., & Nguyen, D. T. (2022) · Data · doi:10.3390/data7110160 · Cited by 65
Bostrom, A., Demuth, J. L., Wirz, C. D., Cains, M. G., Schumacher, A., Madlambayan, D., Bansal, A. S., Bearth, A., Chase, R. J., Crosman, K. M., et al. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14245 · Cited by 81
Wang, P., Wang, P., Tansey, K. J., Liu, J., Delaney, B., & Quan, W. (2024) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.109758 · Cited by 71
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Papajorgji, P. J., & Moskowitz, H. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78078-3_5 · Cited by 66
Sokol, K., & Flach, P. A. (2018) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/865 · Cited by 68
A Situation Awareness-Based Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI
Sanneman, L., & Shah, J. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_6 · Cited by 62
NICE: an algorithm for nearest instance counterfactual explanations
Brughmans, D., Leyman, P., & Martens, D. (2023) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-023-00930-y · Cited by 64
Akula, A., Wang, K., Liu, C., Saba-Sadiya, S., Lu, H., Todorović, S., Chai, J. Y., & Zhu, S. C. (2021) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103581 · Cited by 72
XEM: An explainable-by-design ensemble method for multivariate time series classification
Fauvel, K., Fromont, É., Masson, V., Faverdin, P., & Termier, A. (2022) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-022-00823-6 · Cited by 77
What is new with Artificial Intelligence? Human–agent interactions through the lens of social agency
Pagliari, M., Chambon, V., & Berberian, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954444 · Cited by 81
An explainable AI-driven biomarker discovery framework for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer classification
Dwivedi, K., Rajpal, A., Rajpal, S., Agarwal, M., Kumar, V., & Kumar, N., V (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106544 · Cited by 70
Wang, D., Honnorat, N., Fox, P. T., Ritter, K., Eickhoff, S. B., Seshadri, S. S., & Habes, M. (2023) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119929 · Cited by 70
The Role of Explainable AI in the Research Field of AI Ethics
Vainio-Pekka, H., Agbese, M., Jantunen, M., Vakkuri, V., Mikkonen, T., Rousi, R. A., & Abrahamsson, P. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3599974 · Cited by 85
Survey of federated learning in intrusion detection
Zhang, H., Ye, J., Huang, W. X., Liu, X., & Gu, J. J. (2024) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2024.104976 · Cited by 74
Explainable AI (XAI) in image segmentation in medicine, industry, and beyond: A survey
Gipiškis, R., Tsai, C.-W., & Kurasova, O. (2024) · ICT Express · doi:10.1016/j.icte.2024.09.008 · Cited by 75
AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care
Biller-Andorno, N., Ferrario, A., Joebges, S., Krones, T., Massini, F., Barth, P., Arampatzis, G., & Krauthammer, M. (2022) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106786 · Cited by 67
BRKAN, M., & BONNET, G. (2020) · European Journal of Risk Regulation · doi:10.1017/err.2020.10 · Cited by 63
An Empirical Evaluation of AI Deep Explainable Tools
Hailemariam, Y., Yazdinejad, A., Parizi, R. M., Srivastava, G., & Dehghantanha, A. (2020) · IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps) · doi:10.1109/gcwkshps50303.2020.9367541 · Cited by 66
From Contrastive to Abductive Explanations and Back Again
Ignatiev, A., Narodytska, N., Asher, N. M., & Marques-Silva, J. P. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77091-4_21 · Cited by 63
The Use of Responsible Artificial Intelligence Techniques in the Context of Loan Approval Processes
Purificato, E., Lorenzo, F., Fallucchi, F., & Luca, E. W. D. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2081284 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, T.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Miller, Tim
- ORCID
- Miller, Tim
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 267
- Pages
- 1-38
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2670253439
- Cited by
- 5,302
- References
- 173
- Citations by year
- 2026: 848 · 2025: 855 · 2024: 765 · 2023: 788 · 2022: 673 · 2021: 690 · 2020: 413 · 2019: 212
- FWCI
- 192.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 1461 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP160104083)
- Defence Science and Technology Group
- Defence Science Institute
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Keywords
- explainable AI, human explanations, cognitive biases, social expectations, explanation evaluation, explanation generation, philosophy of explanation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
