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
Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-5840 · Cited by 3,383
An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1416950 · Cited by 3,340
Studies in the Logic of Explanation
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/286983 · Cited by 3,174
A theory of diagnosis from first principles
Reiter, R. (1987) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90062-2 · Cited by 3,031
BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. (1995) · Cited by 2,577
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 · Cited by 1,897
The Inference to the Best Explanation
Harman, G. H. (1965) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183532 · Cited by 1,741
Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project
(1986) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/s0736-5853(86)80073-9 · Cited by 1,712
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1982) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.015 · Cited by 1,580
Automated Planning: Theory and Practice
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. S., & Traverso, P. (2004) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · Cited by 1,519
Explanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View
Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R. M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. T. (1986) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022691120807 · Cited by 1,382
Keil, F. C. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100 · Cited by 1,350
Cooper, A. J. (1999) · Cited by 1,162
Causal schemata and the attribution process
Kelley, H. H. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,093
Thagard, P. R. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00057046 · Cited by 1,075
Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language
Knobe, J. (2003) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/63.3.190 · Cited by 1,046
Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part I: Causes
Halpern, J. Y., & Pearl, J. (2005) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axi147 · Cited by 829
User Modeling in Human–Computer Interaction
Fischer, G. (2001) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1011145532042 · Cited by 766
The Folk Concept of Intentionality
Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1314 · Cited by 742
Flew, A., & Hanson, N. R. (1961) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2960132 · Cited by 715
The structure and function of explanations
Lombrozo, T. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004 · Cited by 693
Earman, J., & Mackie, J. L. (1976) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184048 · Cited by 637
From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry
Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1976) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 612
Principles of Explanatory Debugging to Personalize Interactive Machine Learning
Kulesza, T., Burnett, M., Wong, W.-K., & Stumpf, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2678025.2701399 · Cited by 576
How People Explain Behavior: A New Theoretical Framework
Malle, B. F. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2 · Cited by 538
On constitution and causation in International Relations
Wendt, A. (1998) · Review of International Studies · doi:10.1017/s0260210598001028 · Cited by 523
Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model.
Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.1.75 · Cited by 503
Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-3826 · Cited by 492
Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.3.388 · Cited by 491
Causation as a Secondary Quality
Menzies, P., & Price, H. (1993) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/44.2.187 · Cited by 463
Conversational processes and causal explanation.
Hilton, D. J. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.65 · Cited by 456
How the mind explains behavior: folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-6170 · Cited by 436
Simplicity and probability in causal explanation.
Lombrozo, T. (2007) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006 · Cited by 430
Causation and the flow of energy
Fair, D. (1979) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/bf00174894 · Cited by 413
Hunter, A. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_3 · Cited by 413
Distilling a neural network into a soft decision tree
Frosst, N., & Hinton, G. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.09784 · Cited by 407
Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403
Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models
Kulesza, T., Stumpf, S., Burnett, M., Yang, S., Kwan, I., & Wong, W.-K. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing · doi:10.1109/vlhcc.2013.6645235 · Cited by 388
Wesley Salmon's Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory
Dowe, P. (1992) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289662 · Cited by 375
Improving Robot Controller Transparency Through Autonomous Policy Explanation
Hayes, B., & Shah, J. A. (2017) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2909824.3020233 · Cited by 359
Plan Explanations as Model Reconciliation: Moving Beyond Explanation as Soliloquy
Chakraborti, T., Sreedharan, S., Zhang, Y., & Kambhampati, S. (2017) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/23 · Cited by 359
Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability
Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009 · Cited by 345
Lipton, P. (1990) · Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement · doi:10.1017/s1358246100005130 · Cited by 343
Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information
Moore, J. D., & Paris, C. L. (1993) · Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) · Cited by 335
Responsibility and Blame: A Structural-Model Approach
Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1391 · Cited by 325
Causal–explanatory pluralism: How intentions, functions, and mechanisms influence causal ascriptions
Lombrozo, T. (2010) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.002 · Cited by 315
Situation Awareness-Based Agent Transparency
Chen, J. Y., Procci, K., Boyce, M. W., Wright, J. L., Garcia, A. J., & Barnes, M. (2014) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · doi:10.21236/ada600351 · Cited by 306
Formal systems for persuasion dialogue
Prakken, H. (2006) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888906000865 · Cited by 298
Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account.
Read, S. J., & Marcus‐Newhall, A. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.429 · Cited by 279
An enquiry concerning human understanding : a critical edition
Hume, D., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2000) · Clarendon Press eBooks · Cited by 276
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13002197 · Cited by 270
A Short Introduction to Computational Social Choice
Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., & Nicolas Maudet, B. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69507-3_4 · Cited by 264
Explaining Classifications For Individual Instances
Robnik‐Šikonja, M., & Kononenko, I. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2007.190734 · Cited by 255
On the mechanization of abductive logic
Pople, H. E. (1973) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 250
Assessing demand for intelligibility in context-aware applications
Lim, B. Y., & Dey, A. K. (2009) · Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing · doi:10.1145/1620545.1620576 · Cited by 246
Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment.
Miller, D. T., & Gunasegaram, S. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1111 · Cited by 243
Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part II: Explanations
Halpern, J. Y., & Pearl, J. (2005) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axi148 · Cited by 242
Explanation and abductive inference
Lombrozo, T. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0014 · Cited by 242
Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: New answers to an old question.
Malle, B. F., Knobe, J., & Nelson, S. E. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.491 · Cited by 241
Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception
Prasada, S., & Dillingham, E. M. (2006) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.003 · Cited by 230
Comparison of machine learning and traditional classifiers in glaucoma diagnosis
Chan, K., Lee, T.-W., Sample, P. A., Goldbaum, M. H., Weinreb, R. N., & B, T. J. S. A. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2002.802012 · Cited by 230
Leading questions and memory: Pragmatic constraints
Dodd, D. H., & Bradshaw, J. M. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90379-5 · Cited by 220
Sensitive and Insensitive Causation
Woodward, J. (2006) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.1215/00318108-2005-001 · Cited by 214
Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect
Uttich, K., & Lombrozo, T. (2010) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.003 · Cited by 211
Lewis, D. D. (1987) · doi:10.1093/0195036468.003.0007 · Cited by 206
A Causal-Model Theory of Conceptual Representation and Categorization.
Rehder, B. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1141 · Cited by 201
Halpern, J. Y. (2000) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.648 · Cited by 199
Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior.
Malle, B. F. (2011) · Cited by 195
Event controllability in counterfactual thinking
Girotto, V., Legrenzi, P., & Rizzo, A. (1991) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(91)90007-m · Cited by 194
From one to many: planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems
Brafman, R. I., & Domshlak, C. (2008) · Cited by 188
Contemporary science and natural explanation: commonsense conceptions of causality
(1988) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-1476 · Cited by 185
Characteristics of individuals with fear of spiders
Davey, G. C. L. (1991) · Anxiety Research · doi:10.1080/08917779208248798 · Cited by 184
Autonomy and Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction: A Field Study
Stubbs, K. N., HINDS, P. J., & Wettergreen, D. S. (2007) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2007.21 · Cited by 162
Explanation in Second Generation Expert Systems
Swartout, W. R., & Moore, J. D. (1993) · Second Generation Expert Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77927-5_24 · Cited by 160
Explainable Agency for Intelligent Autonomous Systems
Langley, P., Meadows, B., Sridharan, M., & Choi, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i2.19108 · Cited by 156
Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis
Poole, D. (1989) · Cited by 152
Explainable PlanningPreprint
Fox, M., Long, D. P., & Magazzeni, D. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1709.10256 · Cited by 148
What Is a Conversation Policy?
Greaves, M., Holmback, H. K., & Bradshaw, J. M. (2000) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/10722777_8 · Cited by 148
A knowledge-level account of abduction
Levesque, H. J. (1989) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 147
Logical dialogue-games and fallacies
Walton, D. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 145
Malle, B. F., Knobe, J., O'Laughlin, M. J., Pearce, G. E., & Nelson, S. E. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.309 · Cited by 143
Explaining control strategies in problem solving
Chandrasekaran, B., Tanner, M. C., & Josephson, J. R. (1989) · IEEE Expert · doi:10.1109/64.21896 · Cited by 137
Gerstenberg, T., Peterson, M., Goodman, N. D., Lagnado, D. A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617713053 · Cited by 135
Aronson, J. L. (1971) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00413436 · Cited by 127
Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought
Hankinson, R. J. (2001) · doi:10.1093/0199246564.001.0001 · Cited by 125
Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions.
Susskind, J. M., Maurer, K. L., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.181 · Cited by 124
Mental Models and Causal Explanation: Judgements of Probable Cause and Explanatory Relevance
Hilton, D. (1996) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/135467896394447 · Cited by 117
Counterfactual thinking about controllable events
McCloy, R., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2000) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03209355 · Cited by 112
Betsch, T., Fiedler, K., & Brinkmann, J. (1998) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(1998110)28:6 · Cited by 110
Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogues
Cawsey, A. J. (1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 107
Conjunctive explanations: When two reasons are better than one.
Leddo, J., Abelson, R. P., & Gross, P. H. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.933 · Cited by 106
How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals.
O'Laughlin, M. J., & Malle, B. F. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.33 · Cited by 106
A new dialectical theory of explanation
Walton, D. (2004) · Philosophical Explorations · doi:10.1080/1386979032000186863 · Cited by 105
BLAH, a system which explains its reasoning
Weiner, J. L. (1980) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90021-1 · Cited by 103
Complexity results for structure-based causality
Eiter, T., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2002) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(02)00271-0 · Cited by 97
The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?
Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., & Boettger, R. (1996) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199611)26:6 · Cited by 97
A probabilistic model of plan recognition
Eugene Charniak, D., & Goldman, R. P. (1991) · National Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 96
Time to Give Up the Dogmas of Attribution
Malle, B. F. (2011) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385522-0.00006-8 · Cited by 95
Explanation and categorization: How “why?” informs “what?”
Lombrozo, T. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.007 · Cited by 94
Planning Over Multi-Agent Epistemic States: A Classical Planning Approach
Muise, C. J., Belle, V., Felli, P., McIlraith, S. A., Miller, T., Pearce, A. R., & Sonenberg, L. (2015) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9665 · Cited by 93
Self-citationThe hazards of explanation: Overgeneralization in the face of exceptions.
Williams, J. J., Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, B. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0030996 · Cited by 88
Argumentation-Based Inference and Decision Making--A Medical Perspective
Fox, J., Glasspool, D. W., Grecu, D. L., Modgil, S., South, M., & Patkar, V. (2007) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2007.102 · Cited by 87
Spreading the blame: The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple agents
Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2010) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.011 · Cited by 86
The problem of causal selection.
Hesslow, G. (1988) · Cited by 86
Malle, B. F., & Pearce, G. E. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.278 · Cited by 85
Do You Get It? User-Evaluated Explainable BDI Agents
Broekens, J., Harbers, M., Hindriks, K. V., den Bosch, K. V., Jonker, C. M., & Meyer, J. C. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16178-0_5 · Cited by 83
Explaining Explanation, Part 1: Theoretical Foundations
Hoffman, R. R., & Klein, G. A. (2017) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2017.54 · Cited by 83
Attribution in conversational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation‐giving
Slugoski, B. R., Lalljee, M., Lamb, R., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1993) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230302 · Cited by 79
Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion
Walton, D. (2006) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016 · Cited by 76
Linegang, M. P., Stoner, H. A., Patterson, M. J., Seppelt, B., Hoffman, J. D., Crittendon, Z. B., & Lee, J. D. (2006) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120605002304 · Cited by 76
Causal Learning and Explanation of Deep Neural Networks via Autoencoded ActivationsPreprint
Harradon, M., Druce, J., & Ruttenberg, B. E. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.00541 · Cited by 76
When similarity and causality compete in category-based property generalization
Rehder, B. (2006) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193382 · Cited by 71
Explanations Versus Applications
Preston, J. L., & Nicholas Epley, A. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01621.x · Cited by 71
Why-oriented end-user debugging of naive Bayes text classification
Kulesza, T., Stumpf, S., Wong, W., Burnett, M., Perona, S., Ko, A. J., & Oberst, I. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/2030365.2030367 · Cited by 69
Hilton, D., McClure, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2009) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.623 · Cited by 67
Explanatory Coherence and Belief Revision in Naive Physics
Ranney, M. A., & Thagard, P. R. (1988) · doi:10.21236/ada201093 · Cited by 61
Remote Causes, Bad Explanations?
BOUWEL, J. V., & Weber, E. (2002) · Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour · doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00197 · Cited by 61
Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model
Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (1992) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220206 · Cited by 61
Explanation and inference: mechanistic and functional explanations guide property generalization
Lombrozo, T., & Gwynne, N. Z. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00700 · Cited by 60
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) Versus Explaining for the Best Inference (EBI)
Wilkenfeld, D. A., & Lombrozo, T. (2015) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-015-9784-4 · Cited by 57
Contrastive and counterfactual reasoning in causal judgment.
McGill, A. L., & Klein, J. G. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.897 · Cited by 56
Planning interactive explanations
Cawsey, A. J. (1993) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1009 · Cited by 54
How to Explain Individual Classification Decisions
(2010) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/1756006.1859912 · Cited by 54
Goal‐Based Explanation Evaluation
Leake, D. B. (1991) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1504_2 · Cited by 53
User modelling in interactive explanations
Cawsey, A. J. (1993) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/bf01257890 · Cited by 52
Abduction, experience, and goals: a model of everyday abductive explanation
Leake, D. B. (1995) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/09528139508953820 · Cited by 49
For you can't always get what you want: When preconditions are better explanations than goals
McClure, J., & Hilton, D. (1997) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01129.x · Cited by 47
Computational complexity of hypothesis assembly
Allemang, D., Tanner, M. C., Bylander, T., & Josephson, J. R. (1987) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 45
“Explain” in scientific discourse
Overton, J. A. (2012) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0109-8 · Cited by 43
The Category of the Mind: Folk Psychology of Belief, Desire, and Intention
Kashima, Y., McKintyre, A., & Clifford, P. I. (1998) · Asian Journal Of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/1467-839x.00019 · Cited by 42
The role of prescriptive norms and knowledge in children’s and adults’ causal selection.
Samland, J., Josephs, M., Waldmann, M. R., & Hannes Rakoczy, B. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000138 · Cited by 42
A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation
Walton, D. (2010) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9745-z · Cited by 42
Goal-based Explanations of Actions and Outcomes
McClure, J. (2001) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792772143000067 · Cited by 41
Social Attribution and Explanation
Hilton, D. (2017) · Oxford Handbooks Online · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199399550.013.33 · Cited by 37
From autistic to social agents
Dignum, F. P. M., Prada, R., & Hofstede, G. J. (2014) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · doi:10.5555/2615731.2617431 · Cited by 36
The Minds of Many: Opponent Modeling in a Stochastic Game
von der Osten, F. B., Kirley, M., & Miller, T. (2017) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/537 · Cited by 35
Self-citationDialogical Models of Explanation.
Walton, D. (2007) · Cited by 34
Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning.
Trabasso, T., & Bartolone, J. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.904 · Cited by 34
Generating interactive explanations
Cawsey, A. J. (1991) · Cited by 33
Conditional logic of actions and causation
Giordano, L., & Schwind, C. B. (2004) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2004.04.009 · Cited by 31
When People Explain Difficult Actions, is the Causal Question How or Why?
McClure, J., Hilton, D., Cowan, J., Ishida, L., & Wilson, M. (2001) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x01020003004 · Cited by 27
Intelligible Artificial Intelligence
Weld, D. S., & Bansal, G. (2018) · Cited by 26
Chin‐Parker, S., & Bradner, A. (2009) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0341-4 · Cited by 24
CAUSES AND EXPLANATIONS IN THE STRUCTURAL-MODEL APPROACH: TRACTABLE CASES
Systeme, A. W., Eiter, T., Eiter, T., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2002) · Cited by 24
Formalizing Explanatory Dialogues
Arioua, A., & Madalina Croitoru, A. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_19 · Cited by 24
The scope of formal explanation
Prasada, S. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1276-x · Cited by 24
The course of events: counterfactuals, causal sequences, and explanation
Hilton, D., & McClure, J. (2005) · ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) · doi:10.4324/9780203963784-11 · Cited by 22
Combining Planning with Gaze for Online Human Intention Recognition
Singh, R., Miller, T., Newn, J., Sonenberg, L., Velloso, E., & Vetere, F. (2018) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/dwiy4771 · Cited by 22
Self-citationIn Defense of a Non-Causal Account of Reasons Explanations
Ginet, C. (2008) · The Journal of Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10892-008-9033-z · Cited by 21
Debugging Agent Programs with Why?: Questions
Winikoff, M. (2017) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.5555/3091125.3091166 · Cited by 19
Contrastive Constraints Guide Explanation‐Based Category Learning
Chin‐Parker, S., & Cantelon, J. (2017) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12405 · Cited by 18
Counterfactuals, conditionals and causality: A social psychological perspective
Hilton, D., McClure, J., & Slugoski, B. R. (2005) · Cited by 12
Do Social Norms Influence Causal Inferences
Samland, J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2014) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 11
Overton, J. A. (2012) · Scholarship@Western (Western University) · Cited by 9
Using General-Purpose Planning for Action Selection in Human-Robot Interaction
Petrick, R. P. A., & Foster, M. E. (2016) · ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) · Cited by 8
Normative practical reasoning via argumentation and dialogue
Shams, Z., Vos, M. D., Oren, N., & Padget, J. A. (2016) · Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) · doi:10.5555/3060621.3060794 · Cited by 7
Goals Affect the Perceived Quality of Explanations.
Vasilyeva, N. Y., Wilkenfeld, D. A., & Lombrozo, T. (2015) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 7
Scientific Explanation and Computation.
Overton, J. A. (2011) · Explanation-aware Computing · Cited by 7
The Construction of Explanations
Byrne, R. M. J. (1991) · Workshops in computing · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3542-5_21 · Cited by 6
Distinguishing the effects of beliefs and preconditions: the folk psychology of goals and actions
Boonzaier, A., McClure, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2005) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.280 · Cited by 4
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
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2870052 · Cited by 6,294
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611
“classification or forecast can be complex for AI based systems (Miller, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialMachine learning and deep learning
Janiesch, C., Zschech, P., & Heinrich, K. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-021-00475-2 · Cited by 2,959
Explainable AI: a review of machine learning interpretability methods
Linardatos, P., Papastefanopoulos, V., & Kotsiantis, S. (2020) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e23010018 · Cited by 2,922
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
