Cited by 287Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AISoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Explaining models: an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment

Open access
Dodge, Jonathan, Liao, Q. Vera, Zhang, Yunfeng, Bellamy, Rachel K. E., Dugan, Casey·2019·Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

Abstract

Ensuring fairness of machine learning systems is a human-in-the-loop process. It relies on developers, users, and the general public to identify fairness problems and make improvements. To facilitate the process we need effective, unbiased, and user-friendly explanations that people can confidently rely on. Towards that end, we conducted an empirical study with four types of programmatically generated explanations to understand how they impact people's fairness judgments of ML systems. With an experiment involving more than 160 Mechanical Turk workers, we show that: 1) Certain explanations are considered inherently less fair, while others can enhance people's confidence in the fairness of the algorithm; 2) Different fairness problems-such as model-wide fairness issues versus case-specific fairness discrepancies-may be more effectively exposed through different styles of explanation; 3) Individual differences, including prior positions and judgment criteria of algorithmic fairness, impact how people react to different styles of explanation. We conclude with a discussion on providing personalized and adaptive explanations to support fairness judgments of ML systems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3301275.3302310

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Dodge et al. found that local explanations, by highlighting unfair features used for individual predictions, appear to be more alarming than global explanations when used to explain an unfair model's decisions, and thus more effective in calibrating people's fairness judgment of ML models.

    “They found that local explanations, by highlighting unfair features used for individual predictions, appear to be more alarming than global explanations when used to explain an unfair model's decisions, and thus more effective in calibrating people's fairness judgment of ML models.”

    From Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tasks that involve inherent uncertainty are often those where humans tend to rely on AI systems for advice, such as loan approval, recidivism prediction, house price estimation, and student admission.

    “Tasks that involve inherent uncertainty are often those where humans tend to rely on AI systems for advice, such as loan approval [27, 34, 124], recidivism prediction [31, 47, 86], house price estimation [2, 13, 25], and student admission [13, 24].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Gar- nett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 3992ś4001. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 6988-optimized-pre-processing-for-discrimination-prevention.pdf
  2. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learn- ing classiication without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1171ś1180.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dodge, J., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R. K. E., & Dugan, C.
Affiliations
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-03-17
Pages
275-285
OpenAlex
W4288414189
Cited by
286
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 3
FWCI
11.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Army Research Laboratory and UK Ministry of Defence (W911NF-16-3-0001)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-17-2-4030)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
explainable AI, algorithmic fairness, fairness judgments, human-in-the-loop, explanation styles, individual differences, personalized explanations, adaptive explanations, trust in machine learning

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