The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of example-based explanations in a machine learning interface
Open accessAbstract
The black-box nature of machine learning algorithms can make their predictions difficult to understand and explain to end-users. In this paper, we propose and evaluate two kinds of example-based explanations in the visual domain, normative explanations and comparative explanations (Figure 1), which automatically surface examples from the training set of a deep neural net sketch-recognition algorithm. To investigate their effects, we deployed these explanations to 1150 users on QuickDraw, an online platform where users draw images and see whether a recognizer has correctly guessed the intended drawing. When the algorithm failed to recognize the drawing, those who received normative explanations felt they had a better understanding of the system, and perceived the system to have higher capability. However, comparative explanations did not always improve perceptions of the algorithm, possibly because they sometimes exposed limitations of the algorithm and may have led to surprise. These findings suggest that examples can serve as a vehicle for explaining algorithmic behavior, but point to relative advantages and disadvantages of using different kinds of examples, depending on the goal.
Overview
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
“Wang and Yin [82] found that example-based explanations underperform feature-based explanations for improving appropriate reliance, though other studies suggest example-based explanations are better at helping people detect model errors [11,13,49], usually by recognizing the dissimilarity between the instance and selected examples.”
From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A study conducted by Cai et al. [3] found that comparative explanation, by comparisons with examples in alternative classes, can lead to better discovery of the limitations of the AI, compared to normative explanation that describes examples in the intended class.”
From Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making (2020) · cites this paper as [3]
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
"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
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1×
“Examples can potentially help users develop intuition for the reasons underlying machine predictions, without directly exposing the internal logic of the algorithm [19, 28, 33].”
BackgroundEuropean Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a “Right to Explanation”
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741 · Cited by 2,131 · cited 1×
“The size, complexity, and opacity of ML algorithms have led to increasing regulations and demands for more explainable AI [1, 9].”
BackgroundExplaining collaborative filtering recommendations
Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2000) · Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/358916.358995 · Cited by 1,731
Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions
Koh, P. W., & Liang, P. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.04730 · Cited by 1,514
The Psychology of Social Norms.
Hankins, F. H., & Sherif, M. (1937) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2084385 · Cited by 1,468
SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise
Smilkov, D., Thorat, N., Kim, B., Viégas, F., & Wattenberg, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03825 · Cited by 1,467
Kim, B., Wattenberg, M., Gilmer, J., Cai, C., Wexler, J., Viegas, F., & Sayres, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.11279 · Cited by 1,240
Self-citationThe attribution of blame : causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness
Shaver, K. G. (1985) · Cited by 800
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Dumitru Erhan , Yoshua Bengio , Aaron Courville , and Pascal Vincent . 2009 . Visualizing higher-layer features of a deep network . University of Montreal 1341 , 3 (2009), 1 . Dumitru Erhan, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. 2009. Visualizing higher-layer features of a deep network. University of Montreal 1341, 3 (2009), 1.
- Tim Miller . 2017. Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07269 ( 2017 ). Tim Miller. 2017. Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07269 (2017). · arXiv
- Sandra Wachter Brent Mittelstadt and Chris Russell. 2017. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. (2017). Sandra Wachter Brent Mittelstadt and Chris Russell. 2017. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. (2017). · 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
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
Liao, Q. V., Gruen, D., & Miller, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376590 · Cited by 925
Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852 · Cited by 895
A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems
Mohseni, S., Zarei, N., & Ragan, E. D. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3387166 · Cited by 785
Cai, C. J., Winter, S., Steiner, D., Wilcox, L., & Terry, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359206 · Cited by 594
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cai, C. J., Jongejan, J., & Holbrook, J.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-03-17
- Pages
- 258-262
- OpenAlex
- W2916797267
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 9.66
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- example-based explanations, explainable machine learning, normative explanation, sketch recognition, deep neural network, black-box algorithms, QuickDraw
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
