Leveraging rationales to improve human task performance
Open accessAbstract
Machine learning (ML) systems across many application areas are increasingly demonstrating performance that is beyond that of humans. In response to the proliferation of such models, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has sought to develop techniques that enhance the transparency and interpretability of machine learning methods. In this work, we consider a question not previously explored within the XAI and ML communities: Given a computational system whose performance exceeds that of its human user, can explainable AI capabilities be leveraged to improve the performance of the human? We study this question in the context of the game of Chess, for which computational game engines that surpass the performance of the average player are widely available. We introduce the Rationale-Generating Algorithm, an automated technique for generating rationales for utility-based computational methods, which we evaluate with a multi-day user study against two baselines. The results show that our approach produces rationales that lead to statistically significant improvement in human task performance, demonstrating that rationales automatically generated from an AI's internal task model can be used not only to explain what the system is doing, but also to instruct the user and ultimately improve their task performance.
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
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 52
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Michael Bain and Stephen Muggleton. 1994. Learning optimal chess strategies. In Machine intelligence 13. Oxford University Press, Inc., 291-309.
- Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding Black-Box Predictions via Influence Functions. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning -Volume 70 (ICMLâ Ȃ Ź17). JMLR.org, 1885â Ȃ Ş1894.
- Nick Montfort and Ian Bogost. 2009. Racing the beam: The Atari video computer system. Mit Press.
- Herbert Simon and William Chase. 1988. Skill in chess. In Computer chess compendium. Springer, 175-188.
- Alistair G Sutcliffe, Frans van Assche, and David Benyon. 2016. Domain knowl- edge for interactive system design. Springer.
- Authors
- Das, D., & Chernova, S.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- ORCID
- Chernova, Sonia
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-03-17
- Pages
- 510-518
- OpenAlex
- W3005876361
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 2.58
- 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
- NSF (DGE-1650044, IIS 1564080)
- ONR (N000141612835)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- explainable AI, rationales, chess, game engines, human-AI interaction, user instructions
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