Cited by 125Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesUsability and User Interface Design

Explaining machine learning models with interactive natural language conversations using TalkToModel

Open access
Slack, Dylan, Krishna, Satyapriya, Lakkaraju, Himabindu, Singh, Sameer·2023·Nature Machine Intelligence

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Practitioners increasingly use machine learning (ML) models, yet models have become more complex and harder to understand. To understand complex models, researchers have proposed techniques to explain model predictions. However, practitioners struggle to use explainability methods because they do not know which explanation to choose and how to interpret the explanation. Here we address the challenge of using explainability methods by proposing TalkToModel: an interactive dialogue system that explains ML models through natural language conversations. TalkToModel consists of three components: an adaptive dialogue engine that interprets natural language and generates meaningful responses; an execution component that constructs the explanations used in the conversation; and a conversational interface. In real-world evaluations, 73% of healthcare workers agreed they would use TalkToModel over existing systems for understanding a disease prediction model, and 85% of ML professionals agreed TalkToModel was easier to use, demonstrating that TalkToModel is highly effective for model explainability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s42256-023-00692-8

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slack, D., Krishna, S., Lakkaraju, H., & Singh, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Slack, Dylan
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2023-07-27
Volume
5
Issue
8
Pages
873-883
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385302687
Cited by
125
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 8
FWCI
11.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NSF | Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering | Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS-2040989, IIS-2046873, IIS-2008956, IIS-2008461)
  • I was supported by a fellowship from the hasso plattner institute during the bulk of completing this work.
  • Google, JP Morgan, Amazon, Harvard Data Science Initiative, D^3 institute at Harvard
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
machine learning explainability, natural language dialogue systems, interactive explanations, conversational interfaces, model understanding, disease prediction model, healthcare workers

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