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
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 701–800 of 1,050
Leveraging explanations in interactive machine learning: An overview
Teso, S., Alkan, Ö., Stammer, W., & Daly, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1066049 · Cited by 76
Human-Robot Teaming: Grand Challenges
Natarajan, M., Seraj, E., Altundas, B., Paleja, R., Ye, S., Chen, L., Jensen, R., Chang, K. C., & Gombolay, M. (2023) · Current Robotics Reports · doi:10.1007/s43154-023-00103-1 · Cited by 58
Charting Competence: A Holistic Scale for Measuring Proficiency in Artificial Intelligence Literacy
Yuan, C. W., Tsai, H.-Y. S., & Chen, Y.-T. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241261206 · Cited by 57
Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965 · Cited by 75
Explainability and Interpretability in Concept and Data Drift: A Systematic Literature Review
Pelosi, D., Cacciagrano, D., & Piangerelli, M. (2025) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a18070443 · Cited by 69
Why Can’t You Do That HAL? Explaining Unsolvability of Planning Tasks
Sreedharan, S., Srivastava, S., Smith, D. E., & Subbarao Kambhampati, B. (2019) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/197 · Cited by 53
Marasović, A., Bhagavatula, C., Park, J. S., Bras, R. J. L., Smith, N. A., & Choi, Y. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.253 · Cited by 58
Argumentative explanations for interactive recommendations
Rago, A., Cocarascu, O., Bechlivanidis, C., Lagnado, D. A., & Toni, F. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103506 · Cited by 59
Caigny, A. D., Coussement, K., Verbeke, W., Idbenjra, K., & Phan, M. (2021) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.10.001 · Cited by 51
Six challenges for human-AI Co-learning
van den Bosch, K., Schoonderwoerd, T., Blankendaal, R., & Neerincx, M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22341-0_45 · Cited by 50
Hierarchical Expertise Level Modeling for User Specific Contrastive Explanations
Sreedharan, S., Srivastava, S., & Kambhampati, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/671 · Cited by 50
What is critical for human-centered AI at work? – Toward an interdisciplinary theory
Mazarakis, A., Bernhard-Skala, C., Braun, M., & Peters, I. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1257057 · Cited by 64
Gongane, V. U., Munot, M. V., & Anuse, A. D. (2024) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00248-9 · Cited by 67
Ni, L., Chen, J., Chen, G., Zhao, D., Wang, G., & Aphale, S. S. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108904 · Cited by 51
Artificial agents’ explainability to support trust: considerations on timing and context
Papagni, G., de Pagter, J., Zafari, S., Filzmoser, M., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01462-7 · Cited by 52
Explainable AI and Causal Understanding: Counterfactual Approaches Considered
Baron, S. (2023) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-023-09637-x · Cited by 58
The Force Awakens: Artificial Intelligence for Consumer Law
Lippi, M., Contissa, G., Jabłonowska, A., Lagioia, F., Micklitz, H., Pałka, P., Giovanni Sartor, B., & Torroni, P. (2020) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.11519 · Cited by 49
Zouinar, M. (2020) · Activites · doi:10.4000/activites.4941 · Cited by 85
Explanation-Based Human Debugging of NLP Models: A Survey
Lertvittayakumjorn, P., & Toni, F. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00440 · Cited by 61
Duong‐Trung, N., Born, S., Kim, J. W., Schermeyer, M., Paulick, K., Borisyak, M., Bournazou, M. N. C., Werner, T., Scholz, R., Schmidt-Thieme, L., et al. (2022) · Biochemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bej.2022.108764 · Cited by 56
Mitigating knowledge imbalance in AI-advised decision-making through collaborative user involvement
Gómez, C., Unberath, M., & Huang, C. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102977 · Cited by 57
Masello, L., Castignani, G., Sheehan, B., Guillén, M., & Murphy, F. (2023) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2023.106997 · Cited by 49
(Over)Trusting AI Recommendations: How System and Person Variables Affect Dimensions of Complacency
Harbarth, L., Gößwein, E., Bodemer, D., & Schnaubert, L. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2301250 · Cited by 57
Visualization for Recommendation Explainability: A Survey and New Perspectives
Chatti, M. A., Guesmi, M., & Muslim, A. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3672276 · Cited by 56
A comprehensive study on fidelity metrics for XAI
Miró-Nicolau, M., Jaume-i-Capó, A., & Moyà-Alcover, G. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103900 · Cited by 63
Kameni, F. F. J., & Tsopzé, N. (2020) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-020-05302-x · Cited by 49
Quantitative Evaluation of Machine Learning Explanations: A Human-Grounded Benchmark
Mohseni, S., Block, J. E., & Ragan, E. D. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450689 · Cited by 57
The Need for Verbal Robot Explanations and How People Would Like a Robot to Explain Itself
Zhao, H., Phillips, E. K., & Yanco, H. A. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3469652 · Cited by 51
Ma, S., Chen, Q., Wang, X., Zheng, C., Peng, Z., Yin, M., & Ma, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713423 · Cited by 48
ChatrEx: Designing Explainable Chatbot Interfaces for Enhancing Usefulness, Transparency, and Trust
Khurana, A., Harjandi, P. A., & Chilana, P. K. (2021) · IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc51201.2021.9576440 · Cited by 54
An objective metric for Explainable AI: How and why to estimate the degree of explainability
Sovrano, F., & Vitali, F. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110866 · Cited by 60
Ethically governing artificial intelligence in the field of scientific research and innovation
Esteban, E. G. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08946 · Cited by 61
Kim, T., & Song, H. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2049134 · Cited by 56
Borch, C., & Min, B. H. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221111361 · Cited by 50
Argumentation approaches for explanaible AI in medical informatics
Caroprese, L., Vocaturo, E., & Zumpano, E. (2022) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200109 · Cited by 56
Multiple stakeholders drive diverse interpretability requirements for machine learning in healthcare
Imrie, F., Davis, R. A., & van der Schaar, M. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00698-2 · Cited by 54
Naveed, S., Stevens, G., & Robin-Kern, D. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app142311288 · Cited by 67
Mamun, M., Chowdhury, S. H., Hossain, M. M., Khatun, M., & Iqbal, S. (2025) · Informatics and Health · doi:10.1016/j.infoh.2025.01.001 · Cited by 50
Explainable AI for industrial fault diagnosis: A systematic review
Cação, J., Santos, J., & Antunes, M. (2025) · Journal of Industrial Information Integration · doi:10.1016/j.jii.2025.100905 · Cited by 65
Menger, V., Spruit, M. R., van Est, R., Nap, E., & Scheepers, F. E. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6709 · Cited by 53
Egoistic and altruistic motivation: How to induce users’ willingness to help for imperfect AI
Lee, Y., Ha, M., Kwon, S., Shim, Y., & Kim, J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.009 · Cited by 53
Explainable Multi-Agent Systems Through Blockchain Technology
Calvaresi, D., Mualla, Y., Najjar, A., Galland, S., & Schumacher, M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4_3 · Cited by 48
Agent-Based Explanations in AI: Towards an Abstract Framework
Ciatto, G., Schumacher, M., Omicini, A., & Calvaresi, D. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_1 · Cited by 48
Empowering Qualitative Research Methods in Education with Artificial Intelligence
Longo, L. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_1 · Cited by 59
Exploring Explainable AI in the Financial Sector: Perspectives of Banks and Supervisory Authorities
Kuiper, O. X., van den Berg, M., van der Burgt, J., & Leijnen, S. (2022) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93842-0_6 · Cited by 68
Artificial intelligence in urban forestry—A systematic review
Araújo, H. C. D. L., Martins, F. S., Cortese, T. T. P., & Locosselli, G. M. (2021) · Urban forestry & urban greening · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127410 · Cited by 47
AI and Ethics—Operationalizing Responsible AI
Zhu, L., Xu, X., Lu, Q., Guido Governatori, A., & Whittle, J. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72188-6_2 · Cited by 47
Auditing fairness under unawareness through counterfactual reasoning
Cornacchia, G., Anelli, V. W., Biancofiore, G. M., Narducci, F., Pomo, C., Ragone, A., & Sciascio, E. D. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103224 · Cited by 53
Explainable artificial intelligence: A taxonomy and guidelines for its application to drug discovery
Ponzoni, I., Paez, J. A., & Campillo, N. E. (2023) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1681 · Cited by 50
BMB-LIME: LIME with modeling local nonlinearity and uncertainty in explainability
Hung, Y.-H., & Lee, C. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111732 · Cited by 51
Explainable Data-Driven Digital Twins for Predicting Battery States in Electric Vehicles
Njoku, J. N., Nwakanma, C. I., & Kim, D. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3413075 · Cited by 54
Exploring Computational User Models for Agent Policy Summarization
Lage, I., Lifschitz, D., Doshi‐Velez, F., & Amir, O. (2019) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/194 · Cited by 51
Maintenance intervention predictions using entity-embedding neural networks
Bukhsh, Z. A., Stipanović, I., Saeed, A., & Dorée, A. G. (2020) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103202 · Cited by 53
Explanations for human-on-the-loop
Li, N., Adepu, S., Kang, E., & Garlan, D. (2020) · International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS) · doi:10.1145/3387939.3391592 · Cited by 47
Demystifying Thermal Comfort in Smart Buildings: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach
Zhang, W., Wen, Y., Tseng, K. J., & Jin, G. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.3042783 · Cited by 47
Explaining Any Time Series Classifier
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Spinnato, F., Pedreschi, D., & Giannotti, F. (2020) · 2020 IEEE Second International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI) · doi:10.1109/cogmi50398.2020.00029 · Cited by 46
Predictive Modeling of Hospital Readmission: Challenges and Solutions
Wang, S., & Xingquan Zhu, A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2021.3089682 · Cited by 49
Moral Decision Making in Human-Agent Teams: Human Control and the Role of Explanations
van der Waa, J., Verdult, S., den Bosch, K. V., van Diggelen, J., Haije, T., van der Stigchel, B., & Cocu, I. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.640647 · Cited by 46
A principlist-based study of the ethical design and acceptability of artificial social agents
Richards, D., Vythilingam, R., & Formosa, P. (2022) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102980 · Cited by 40
A quantitative approach for the comparison of additive local explanation methods
Doumard, E., Aligon, J., Escriva, E., Excoffier, J.-B., Monsarrat, P., & Soulé-Dupuy, C. (2022) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2022.102162 · Cited by 53
Roussel, C., & Böhm, K. (2023) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi12090355 · Cited by 54
da Silva, H. E. C., Santos, G. N. M., Leite, A. F., Mesquita, C. R. M., Figueiredo, P. T. D. S., Stefani, C. M., & de Melo, N. S. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292063 · Cited by 61
Explainable depression symptom detection in social media
Bao, E., Pérez, A., & Parapar, J. (2024) · Health Information Science and Systems · doi:10.1007/s13755-024-00303-9 · Cited by 46
Explanations of Black-Box Model Predictions by Contextual Importance and Utility
Anjomshoae, S., Främling, K., & Najjar, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4_6 · Cited by 46
Gębarowski, R., Oświȩcimka, P., Wątorek, M., & Drożdż, S. (2019) · Nonlinear Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s11071-019-05335-5 · Cited by 46
Kenny, E. M., & Keane, M. T. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107530 · Cited by 49
Deep learning in macroscopic diffuse optical imaging
Smith, J. T., Ochoa, M., Faulkner, D. E., Haskins, G., & Intes, X. (2022) · Journal of Biomedical Optics · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.27.2.020901 · Cited by 47
Lučić, A., Haned, H., & de Rijke, M. (2020) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372824 · Cited by 46
Obregon, J., Hong, J., & Jung, J. (2021) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.07.001 · Cited by 45
Explainable Machine Learning for Lung Cancer Screening Models
Kobylińska, K., Orlowski, T. M., Adamek, M., & Biecek, P. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12041926 · Cited by 51
Human-centered explainability for life sciences, healthcare, and medical informatics
Dey, S., Chakraborty, P., Kwon, B. C., Dhurandhar, A., Ghalwash, M. F., Suárez, F., Ng, K., Sow, D., Varshney, K. R., & Meyer, P. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100493 · Cited by 56
He, X., Hong, Y., Xi, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2095093 · Cited by 49
Mousavi, S. R., Sarmadian, F., Angelini, M. E., Bogaert, P., & Omid, M. (2023) · CATENA · doi:10.1016/j.catena.2023.107392 · Cited by 45
Annuzzi, G., Apicella, A., Arpaïa, P., Bozzetto, L., Criscuolo, S., Benedetto, E. D., Pesola, M., & Prevete, R. (2023) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2023.3348334 · Cited by 48
Critical roles of explainability in shaping perception, trust, and acceptance of autonomous vehicles
Zhang, T., Li, W., Huang, W., & Liang Ma, A. (2024) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103568 · Cited by 46
Fedele, A., Punzi, C., & Tramacere, S. (2024) · Computer law & security review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105986 · Cited by 67
Reliability and Interpretability in Science and Deep Learning
Scorzato, L. (2024) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-024-09682-0 · Cited by 51
The performance-interpretability trade-off: a comparative study of machine learning models
Assis, A., Dantas, J. R., & Andrade, E. (2024) · Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments · doi:10.1007/s40860-024-00240-0 · Cited by 62
Janik, A., Dodd, J. D., Ifrim, G., Sankaran, K., & Curran, K. M. (2021) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Image Processing · doi:10.1117/12.2582227 · Cited by 50
Matthiesen, S., Diederichsen, S. Z., Hansen, M. K. H., Villumsen, C., Lassen, M. C. H., Jacobsen, P. K., Risum, N., Winkel, B. G., Philbert, B. T., Svendsen, J. H., et al. (2021) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/26964 · Cited by 45
Logic-Based Explainability in Machine Learning
Marques-Silva, J. P. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31414-8_2 · Cited by 62
Model Interpretability through the Lens of Computational ComplexityPreprint
Barceló, P., Monet, M., Pérez, J. A., & Subercaseaux, B. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.12265 · Cited by 45
The Socio-Legal Relevance of Artificial Intelligence
Larsson, S. (2019) · Droit et société · doi:10.3917/drs1.103.0573 · Cited by 43
Liang, L., & Cai, X. (2021) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115951 · Cited by 47
Porębski, S. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117116 · Cited by 44
Using MaxSAT for Efficient Explanations of Tree Ensembles
Ignatiev, A., Izza, Y., Stuckey, P. J., & Marques-Silva, J. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i4.20292 · Cited by 44
Salah, H., & Srinivas, S. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25933-5 · Cited by 48
A Review of Machine Learning for Convective Weather
McGovern, A., Chase, R. J., Flora, M. L., Gagne, D. J., Lagerquist, R., Potvin, C. K., Snook, N., & Loken, E. D. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems · doi:10.1175/aies-d-22-0077.1 · Cited by 61
Anomaly diagnosis of connected autonomous vehicles: A survey
Fang, Y., Min, H., Wu, X., Wang, W., Zhao, X., Martínez‐Pastor, B., & Teixeira, R. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102223 · Cited by 51
Ética e inteligencia artificial
Galiana, L. I., Corral-Gudino, L., & Miramontes‐González, J. P. (2024) · Revista Clínica Española · doi:10.1016/j.rce.2024.01.007 · Cited by 59
Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., & McNeese, N. J. (2024) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-024-00765-7 · Cited by 56
Explanation, semantics, and ontology
Guizzardi, G., & Guarino, N. (2024) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2024.102325 · Cited by 76
Explainable AI for Deep Learning Based Disease Detection
Kinger, S., & Kulkarni, V. Y. (2021) · International Conference on Contemporary Computing · doi:10.1145/3474124.3474154 · Cited by 49
On the explanatory power of Boolean decision trees
Audemard, G., Bellart, S., Bounia, L., Koriche, F., Lagniez, J.-M., & Marquis, P. (2022) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2022.102088 · Cited by 65
Bhattacharya, A., Ooge, J., Štiglic, G., & Verbert, K. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584075 · Cited by 44
A principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern for AI and autonomous systems
Porter, Z., Habli, I., Mcdermid, J., & Kaas, M. H. L. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00297-2 · Cited by 37
Human-Like Decision-Making of Autonomous Vehicles in Dynamic Traffic Scenarios
Zhang, T., Zhan, J., Shi, J., Xin, J., & Zheng, N. (2023) · IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · doi:10.1109/jas.2023.123696 · Cited by 46
Bridging the Transparency Gap: What Can Explainable AI Learn from the AI Act?
Gyevnár, B., Ferguson, N., & Schäfer, B. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230367 · Cited by 66
Malgieri, G., & Pasquale, F. (2023) · Computer law & security review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105899 · Cited by 66
A Machine Learning Explainability Tutorial for Atmospheric Sciences
Flora, M. L., Potvin, C. K., McGovern, A., & Handler, S. L. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems · doi:10.1175/aies-d-23-0018.1 · Cited by 49
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
