The DOI matches its Crossref record; 240 of the 240 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? – A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The requirements of a developer are not those of an end-user; and among end-users, the needs of a job or loan applicant are not necessarily those of, say, a scientist, healthcare professional, judge, or intelligence analyst (Gunning et al., 2019;Langer et al., 2021).”
From Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm (2025) · cites this paper as Langer et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“All options for enhancing system understandability aim at improving epistemic access [38, 48].”
From On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“In the XAI literature, this action-enabling potential of transparent decision algorithms often goes unmentioned.”
From AI, Opacity, and Personal Autonomy (2022) · cites this paper as Langer et al., 2021
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
Items 201–240 of 240
Types of understanding: Their nature and their relation to knowledge
Baumberger, C. (2014) · Conceptus · doi:10.1515/cpt-2014-0002 · Cited by 40
User Evaluations on Sentiment-based Recommendation Explanations
Chen, L., Yan, D., & Wang, F. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3282878 · Cited by 40
Chazette, L., Karras, O., & Schneider, K. A. (2019) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re.2019.00032 · Cited by 38
Sokol, K., & Flach, P. A. (2018) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/836 · Cited by 36
Explanation through Argumentation
Sklar, E. I., & Azhar, M. Q. (2018) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3284432.3284470 · Cited by 35
Learning from Artificial Intelligence's Previous Awakenings: The History of Expert Systems
Brock, D. C. (2018) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v39i3.2809 · Cited by 34
Functions in biological kind classification
Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, B. (2012) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.06.002 · Cited by 32
Contextual utility affects the perceived quality of explanations
Vasilyeva, N. Y., Wilkenfeld, D. A., & Lombrozo, T. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1275-y · Cited by 32
Building More Explainable Artificial Intelligence With Argumentation
Zeng, Z., Miao, C., Leung, C., & Chin, J. J. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11353 · Cited by 32
How to Achieve Explainability and Transparency in Human AI Interaction
Hois, J., Theofanou-Fuelbier, D., & Junk, A. J. (2019) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23528-4_25 · Cited by 31
Physiological Indicators for User Trust in Machine Learning with Influence Enhanced Fact-Checking
Zhou, J. J., Hu, H., Li, Z., Yu, K., & Chen, F. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29726-8_7 · Cited by 31
Ho, J. C. (2020) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951720905874 · Cited by 31
Providing awareness, explanation and control of personalized filtering in a social networking site
Nagulendra, S., & Vassileva, J. (2015) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9577-y · Cited by 29
Explaining Explanations to Society
Gilpin, L. H., Testart, C., Fruchter, N., & Adebayo, J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.06560 · Cited by 28
On Understanding and Testimony
Malfatti, F. I. (2019) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-019-00157-8 · Cited by 28
2011 IEEE conference on computational intelligence and games
(2010) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games · doi:10.1109/tciaig.2011.2106610 · Cited by 27
Aspects of Intelligent Systems Explanation
Darlington, K. (2013) · Universal Journal of Control and Automation · doi:10.13189/ujca.2013.010204 · Cited by 25
Going beyond Visualization. Verbalization as Complementary Medium to Explain Machine Learning Models
Sevastjanova, R., Beck, F., Ell, B., Turkay, Ç., Henkin, R., Butt, M., Keim, D. A., & El‐Assady, M. (2018) · City Research Online (City University London) · Cited by 23
Explainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Torta, G., Micalizio, R., & Sormano, S. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4 · Cited by 23
“The impact of explanation dialogues on human-computer trust,”
Nothdurft, F., Heinroth, T., & Minker, W. (2013) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39265-8_7 · Cited by 22
Counterfactual States for Atari Agents via Generative Deep LearningPreprint
Olson, M., Neal, L., Li, F., & Wong, W. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.12969 · Cited by 19
Dey, A. K., Turner, R. M., Leake, D. B., et al. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/b137917 · Cited by 19
From Machine Ethics To Machine Explainability and Back
Baum, K. L., Hermanns, H., & Speith, T. (2018) · Publications of the UdS (Saarland University) · doi:10.22028/d291-48225 · Cited by 14
Self-citationHow model accuracy and explanation fidelity influence user trust in AI
Papenmeier, A., Englebienne, G., & Seifert, C. (2019) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 14
Peeking Inside the Black Box: A New Kind of Scientific Visualization
Stuart, M. T., & Nersessian, N. J. (2018) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9484-3 · Cited by 10
Using Explanations to Improve Ensembling of Visual Question Answering Systems
Mooney, N. F. R. A. R. J. (2017) · Cited by 9
Baaj, I., Poli, J.-P., & Ouerdane, W. (2019) · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-8404 · Cited by 8
Explanations in Software Engineering: The Pragmatic Point of View
Winter, J. D. (2010) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-010-9190-2 · Cited by 7
Different XAI for Different HRI.
Sheh, R. (2017) · eSpace (Curtin University) · Cited by 7
A New Approach for Explainable Multiple Organ Annotation with Few DataPreprint
Pierrard, R., Poli, J.-P., & Hudelot, C. (2019) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12932 · Cited by 7
Lambert, K. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3348-7_8 · Cited by 6
Abstraction for Zooming-In to Unsolvability Reasons of Grid-Cell Problems
Eiter, T., Saribatur, Z. G., & Schüller, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.04998 · Cited by 6
Towards Trustworthy Human-AI Teaming under Uncertainty
Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2019) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 6
Context Style Explanation for Recommender Systems
Sato, M., Nagatani, K., Sonoda, T., Zhang, Q., & Ohkuma, T. (2019) · Journal of Information Processing · doi:10.2197/ipsjjip.27.720 · Cited by 5
Deductive–nomological explanation
Psillos, S. (2002) · doi:10.1017/upo9781844653317.010 · Cited by 4
Towards a Generic Framework for Black-box Explanation Methods (Extended Version)
Henin, C., & Métayer, D. L. (2019) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · Cited by 3
Lucić, A., Haned, H., & de Rijke, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 3
Local Score Dependent Model Explanation for Time Dependent CovariatesPreprint
Watts, X., & Lécué, F. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.04839 · Cited by 2
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lipton, 2018, The mythos of model interpretability, Commun. ACM, 61, 36, 10.1145/3233231 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762
Grassini, S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070692 · Cited by 1,048
Explainable artificial intelligence: a comprehensive review
Minh, D., Wang, H. X., Li, Y. F., & Nguyen, T. N. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10088-y · Cited by 983
A., S., & R., S. (2023) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100230 · Cited by 432
Langer, M., & Landers, R. N. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878 · Cited by 338
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Langer, M., Oster, D., Speith, T., Hermanns, H., Kästner, L., Schmidt, E., Sesing, A., & Baum, K.
- Affiliations
- Saarland University (DE)
- TU Dortmund University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Langer, Markus
- Speith, Timo
- ORCID
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 296
- Pages
- 103473
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3131457744
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 240
- Citations by year
- 2026: 131 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 147 · 2023: 119 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 30
- FWCI
- 30.57
- 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)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ERef Bayreuth (University of Bayreuth) (submittedVersion)
- FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Publications of the UdS (Saarland University)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (389792660, TRR 248)
- European Research Council (695614)
- Volkswagen Foundation (AZ 98512, AZ 98513, AZ 98509, AZ 98511, AZ 95143, AZ 98514, AZ 98510)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- explainable AI, stakeholders, conceptual model, interdisciplinary research
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
