The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining models: an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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].”
From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [31]
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
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707 · cited 2×
“Much recent research is dedicated to the generation of explanations in various styles, includingmodel-agnostic approaches [26, 30] applicable to any ML algorithm.”
BackgroundMethod"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 · cited 3×
“For example, LIME explains feature contribution by what happens to the prediction when the feature-values change (perturbing data) [30].”
BackgroundMethodGauriat, C.-M., Pencolé, Y., Ribot, P., et al. (2024) · HAL · doi:10.4230/oasics.dx.2024.27 · Cited by 12,623
“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
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
Miller, T. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.07269 · Cited by 5,338 · cited 1×
“However, this growing body of research is criticized for łapproaching this [XAI] challenge in a vacuum considering only the computational problemsž [27] without the quintessential understanding of how people perceive and use the explanations.”
BackgroundExplanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302
InfoGAN: Interpretable Representation Learning by Information Maximizing Generative Adversarial NetsPreprint
Chen, X., Duan, Y., Houthooft, R., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., & Abbeel, P. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.03657 · Cited by 3,557
The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 · Cited by 2,913 · cited 2×
“For cognitive style, we measure individual’s need for cognition [7].”
MethodLee, M. K. (2018) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951718756684 · Cited by 1,338 · cited 1×
“There has been a recent resurgence of XAI work driven by the challenge to interpret increasingly complex ML models, such as multi-layered neural networks, and by the evidence that ethical concerns and lack of trust hampers adoption of AI applications [15, 22].”
Background(2013) · Cited by 1,126
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–287 of 287
Explainable AI for Daily Scenarios from End-Users’ Perspective: Non-Use, Concerns, and Ideal Design
Wang, L., Anyi, C. L., Xu, K., Liu, Y., Arriaga, R. I., & Goel, A. K. (2025) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3715336.3735796 · Cited by 7
Ramokapane, K. M., & Rashid, A. (2023) · New Security Paradigms Workshop · doi:10.1145/3633500.3633503 · Cited by 10
Sarkar, P., & Liem, C. C. S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637360 · Cited by 6
Kang, C., Choi, Y., Sohn, Y., Lim, H., & Hong, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687025 · Cited by 5
Social eXplainable AI (Social XAI): Towards Expanding the Social Benefits of XAI
Naiseh, M. (2024) · Studies in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70355-3_13 · Cited by 4
Identifying Algorithmic Decision Subjects' Needs for Meaningful Contestability
Yurrita, M., Verma, H., Balayn, A., Alfrink, K., Gadiraju, U., & Bozzon, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757415 · Cited by 11
AI said, She said - How Users Perceive Consumer Scoring in Practice
Recki, L., Esau, M., Lawo, D., & Stevens, G. (2023) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3603555.3603562 · Cited by 4
“Accordingly, this research area aims to build an understanding of the systems’ outcomes and procedures to strengthen people’s trust in a system [17] and to reveal the underlying causes of the system’s decisions [5, 29].”
BackgroundBenchmarking Trust: A Metric for Trustworthy Machine Learning
Rutinowski, J., Klüttermann, S., Endendyk, J., Reining, C., & Müller, E. (2024) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63787-2_15 · Cited by 4
Algorithmic Bias and Fairness in Case-Based Reasoning
Blanzeisky, W., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14923-8_4 · Cited by 15
Dissecting users' needs for search result explanations
Juneja, P., Zhang, W., Smith, A., Lamba, H., Tetreault, J., & Jaimes, A. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642059 · Cited by 14
Yokota, T., & Nakao, Y. (2022) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3511047.3538033 · Cited by 8
Zhang, H., Shahbazi, N., Chu, X., & Asudeh, A. (2021) · Workshop on Data Management for End-to-End Machine Learning (DEEM) · doi:10.1145/3462462.3468882 · Cited by 4
Mehrotra, S., Gadiraju, U., Bittner, E. A. C., van Delden, F., Jonker, C. M., & Tielman, M. L. (2025) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3699682.3728343 · Cited by 6
Understanding the Effects of AI-Assisted Critical Thinking on Human-AI Decision Making
Tian, H. Y., Amin, H., & Yin, M. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790785 · Cited by 10
A Research Proposal for Promoting Fairness in E-Commerce Recommendation Systems
Zhang, T. (2024) · International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing · doi:10.1109/besc64747.2024.10780676 · Cited by 3
Anik, A. I., & Bunt, A. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc60511.2024.00024 · Cited by 4
Learning to Rationalize for Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Distant Supervision
Brahman, F., Shwartz, V., Rudinger, R., & Choi, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17492 · Cited by 8
Model-Agnostic Explanations using Minimal Forcing Subsets
Han, X., & Ghosh, J. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533992 · Cited by 3
Evidence-based explanation to promote fairness in AI systemsPreprint
Ferreira, J. J., & Monteiro, M. D. S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.01525 · Cited by 3
Smart Contracts, Real-Virtual World Convergence and Economic ImplicationsPreprint
Lehr, W. H. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3898129 · Cited by 3
Ngo, T., & Krämer, N. C. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6az2h · Cited by 4
Xiao-ping, Z., & Cheng, X. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642280 · Cited by 5
Less Is More: Feature Engineering for Fairness and Performance of Machine Learning Software
Meng, L., Li, Y., Chen, L., Ma, M., Zhou, Y., & Xu, B. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3730577 · Cited by 2
Transparency and Trust in Simple Algorithmic Hiring Procedures
Niessen, A. S. M., & Neumann, M. (2026) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.70045 · Cited by 4
Reinhard, P., Li, M. M., Peters, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10716-4 · Cited by 7
“Results from that stream showed that local explanations are more effective in trusting AI systems to make fair decisions (Dodge et al., 2019; Herm, 2023) and that they have less of a priming effect (Lai et al., 2022).”
Sensitivity to Risk Profiles of Users When Developing AI Systems
Cohen, R. A., Agarwal, R., Kumar, D., Parmentier, A., & Leung, T. H. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47358-7_13 · Cited by 2
HAEM: Obtaining Higher-Quality Classification Task Results with AI Workers
Yamashita, Y., Ito, H., Wakabayashi, K., Kobayashi, M., & Morishima, A. (2022) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/3501247.3531580 · Cited by 3
Valtonen, L., & Mäkinen, S. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) · doi:10.1109/ieem55944.2022.9989994 · Cited by 2
Technical challenges and perception: does AI have a PR issue?
Oldfield, M. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00316-2 · Cited by 3
Towards Feasible Counterfactual Explanations: A Taxonomy Guided Template-Based NLG Method
Salimi, P., Wiratunga, N., Corsar, D., & Wijekoon, A. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230499 · Cited by 3
Lenders, D., & Calders, T. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00342-0 · Cited by 2
Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI)
Liao, Q. V., & Varshney, K. R. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108872225.011 · Cited by 448
Self-citationTExSS: Transparency and Explanations in Smart Systems
Smith, A., Kleanthous, S., Dodge, J. E., Dugan, C., Lee, M. K., Lim, B. Y., Kuflik, T., Sarkar, A., Tal, A. S., & Stumpf, S. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3397482.3450705 · Cited by 2
Self-citationHuman-Computer Interaction, User Experience, and AI Systems
Fischer, M., & Rößler, S. (2025) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61375-3_2 · Cited by 1
"Good" XAI Design: For What? In Which Ways?
Wang, L., Liu, Y., & Goel, A. K. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3720036 · Cited by 1
Perceptions of the Fairness Impacts of Multiplicity in Machine Learning
Meyer, A. P., Kim, Y.-S., D'Antoni, L., & Albarghouthi, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713524 · Cited by 1
Nneke, N., Crockett, K. A., & Latham, A. (2025) · IEEE Symposium on Trustworthy, Explainable and Responsible Computational Intelligence (CITREx) · doi:10.1109/citrexcompanion65208.2025.10981501 · Cited by 1
Discrimination Exposed? On the Reliability of Explanations for Discrimination Detection
Skirzyński, J., Danks, D. J., & Ustun, B. (2025) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732167 · Cited by 2
Aljuneidi, S., Heuten, W., Wolters, M. K., & Boll, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05002-1_5 · Cited by 1
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ALGORITHMIC TRANSPARENCY ON TRUST: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ANALYSIS
Čvokić, D. D. (2025) · Acta scientifica Balcanica. · doi:10.63356/asb.2025.002 · Cited by 1
“ Dodge et al. (2019) showed that “explanations focusing on a few key features were more effective at helping users predict algorithmic behavior than comprehensive feature-importance lists”.”
Defensive Attribution of AI Fairness: The Role of Procedural Fairness in AI’s Moral Responsibility
Chen, M., & Lee, Y.-H. (2026) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213269.2025.2610624 · Cited by 1
Anik, A. I., & Bunt, A. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789087 · Cited by 2
Introducing Social Explainable AI
Rohlfing, K. J., & Lim, B. Y. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5290-7_1 · Cited by 2
Byrne, R. M. J. (2026) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.70066 · Cited by 1
“And our willingness to accept AI decisions can be influenced by different factors, including the pro-vision of an explanation (e.g., Dodge et al., 2019; Hoffman et al., 2018; van der Waa et al., 2021).”
de Santana, V. F., Quigley, L. T., Coates, J., & Graves, M. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3637130 · Cited by 1
“…decision making is being used in multiple contexts such as recidivism [23, 25, 52], finance [24], healthcare [33], education [34], job promotion [2], environment [42], combination of multiple AI outcomes [13], and interactive explanations and visualizations for fairness/explainability [16, 32, 50].”
BackgroundBoosting Benefits, Offsetting Obstacles—The Impact of Explanations on AI Users’ Task Performance
Walter, M. C., Broder, H. R., & Förster, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80122-8_7 · Cited by 1
Human Perceptions of Fairness: A Survey Experiment
Sengewald, J., Schlichter, A., Siepermann, M., & Lackes, R. (2025) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80119-8_4 · Cited by 1
Use of What-if Scenarios to Help Explain Artificial Intelligence Models for Neonatal Health
Mamun, A., Devoe, L. D., Evans, M. I., Britt, D. W., Klein‐Seetharaman, J., & Ghasemzadeh, H. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3814951 · Cited by 1
Shahin: Faster Algorithms for Generating Explanations for Multiple Predictions
Hasani, S., Thirumuruganathan, S., Koudas, N., & Das, G. (2021) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3448016.3457332 · Cited by 1
Explainable AI; Are we there yet?
Tanwar, N., & Hasija, Y. (2022) · IEEE Delhi Section Conference (DELCON) · doi:10.1109/delcon54057.2022.9752777 · Cited by 1
Lehoucq, E. (2022) · Journal of Data Science · doi:10.6339/22-jds1053 · Cited by 1
A Scoping Review On The Impact Of Algorithm Bias On The Perceived FairnessPreprint
Saryazdi, A. H., & Mirhoseini, M. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3428999/v1 · Cited by 1
Ronckers, M., Conijn, R., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2024) · doi:10.17504/protocols.io.n92ld89e8v5b/v1 · Cited by 1
TExSS 22: Transparency and Explanations in Smart Systems
Kuflik, T., Dodge, J. E., Kleanthous, S., Lim, B. Y., Negreanu, C., Tal, A. S., & Stumpf, S. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3490100.3511165
Self-citationWheeler, N. E. (2020) · Significance · doi:10.1111/1740-9713.01404
ORANGE: Opposite-label soRting for tANGent Explanations in heterogeneous spaces
Kuratomi, A., Lee, Z., Miliou, I., Lindgren, T., & Papapetrou, P. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa60987.2023.10302474
Reséndez, V., Araujo, T., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. H. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4678521
Trotter, C., & Chen, Y. (2024) · ACM Southeast Regional Conference (ACMSE) · doi:10.1145/3603287.3651192
Hoeppner, S., & Samek, M. (2024) · AUC IURIDICA · doi:10.14712/23366478.2024.24 · Cited by 1
Learning About Explainable AI with Very Little Programming
Dodge, J. E., Diawuo, A., Dai, E., & Das, R. K. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61290-9_10
Self-citationNearest Neighbors Counterfactuals
Magagnini, M., Carrizosa, E., & Leone, R. D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82481-4_14
AI and the Future of Disputing: Naming, Blaming, Claiming, and Preventing
Katsh, E., Schwartz‐Maor, T., & Rabinovich‐Einy, O. (2025) · Conflict Resolution Quarterly · doi:10.1002/crq.21477 · Cited by 16
Explainable AI in Ad Enforcement: Striking the Balance Between Transparency and Safety
Shah, B. M. (2025) · Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management · doi:10.52783/jisem.v10i41s.7584
Daily Water Demand Forecasting: Comparing Ai Models with Shap-Optimized FeaturesPreprint
Li, R., Xin, K., & Chen, W. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7075354/v1
Biological feedback in artificial intelligence systems
Shichkina, Y. A., Игоревна, Б. О., Ma, D., & Salaurov, E. (2025) · IEEE Latin Conference on IoT (LCIoT) · doi:10.1109/lciot64881.2025.11118395
Negotiating AI fairness: a call for rebalancing power relations
Gibin, M., Krasanakis, E., & Grumodas, K. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02653-8
Liu, Y., Cao, Q., Shen, H., Zhang, K., Wu, Y., & Cheng, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757414
GPT Adoption Dilemma and the Impact of Disclosure Policies
Yang, C., Amariles, D. R., Allen, L. P., & Troussel, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12795-2_7
Government AI Investment: Fostering Innovation, Collaboration, and Global Leadership
Torres, A. R., & Montoya, L. N. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12344-2_7
Bourgeade, T. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/6610d333zd0eez4db5z8c67zfa30bac6acf3
Explainability for machine learning models : from data adaptability to user perception
Delaunay, J. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/933366c4z576ez464cz9fcfz24627f86dd2f
La preuve en droit des systèmes d'intelligence artificielle
Pons, R. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/1e108f6ezfa39z422az8706zed4d031bb110
Faster but Not Smarter? Temporal Constraints and User Compliance with AI Explanations
Shahu, A., Greinecker, N., & Wintersberger, P. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798697
Al-Absi, D. T., Simsekler, M. C. E., Yaqub, M. K., & Anwar, S. (2026) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2026.112107
Wise Advice Taking in the Intelligent Era: Connotation, Influencing Factors, and Prospects
康, 文. (2026) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2026.165249
Explanation Demand as a Trait, Not a State: Implications for User Modeling in Adaptive Systems
Ingesson, E., & Riveiro, M. (2026) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3774935.3806160
Algorithmic Justice and Workplace Dignity
Mallick, M. K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7966-1.ch006
Kazi, M., & Poinkar, S. (2026) · Iraqi journal of data science. · doi:10.51173/ijds.v3i2.84
“Dodge et al. [29] demonstrated that analysts' mental models influence the explanation utility function.”
Gaya-Morey, F. X., Rubio, J. M. B., MacKenzie, I. S., Lacuesta, R., & Manresa-Yee, C. (2025) · Revista de la Asociación Interacción Persona Ordenador (AIPO) · doi:10.65234/interaccion.143
“Además, los estudios que evalúan empíricamente los métodos XAI con tareas, usuarios y contextos específicos muestran diferentes necesidades y preferencias de los usuarios (Dodge et al., 2019; Ehsan et al., 2024; Szymanski et al., 2021).”
Understanding Vibe Coding: A Phenomenological Investigation of Flow-Like Human-AI Collaboration
Guriță, A.-E., & Vatavu, R.-D. (2026) · International Conference on Human-AI Interaction and Experience Design (HAXD) · doi:10.1109/haxd70072.2026.11620988
Ziegfeld, L., van Drie, R. A. N., Adhikari, A., & van der Waa, J. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-35387-0_34
Fiebrink, R., Gillies, M. F. P., & Ramos, G. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108872225.010
Who Gets Help? How Fair Collaboration Strategies Shape Perceptions of Robots in Human-Robot Teams
Sarker, S. C., Hasan, S., Green, H. N., & Iqbal, T. (2026) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man72286.2026.11714795
Krot, K., & Rudawska, I. (2026) · Human Technology · doi:10.14254/1795-6889.2026.22-2.11
Zipperling, D., Deck, L., Lanzl, J., & Kühl, N. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3858913
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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
