The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Open accessAbstract
With machine learning models being increasingly used to aid decision making even in high-stakes domains, there has been a growing interest in developing interpretable models. Although many supposedly interpretable models have been proposed, there have been relatively few experimental studies investigating whether these models achieve their intended effects, such as making people more closely follow a model’s predictions when it is beneficial for them to do so or enabling them to detect when a model has made a mistake. We present a sequence of pre-registered experiments (N = 3, 800) in which we showed participants functionally identical models that varied only in two factors commonly thought to make machine learning models more or less interpretable: the number of features and the transparency of the model (i.e., whether the model internals are clear or black box). Predictably, participants who saw a clear model with few features could better simulate the model’s predictions. However, we did not find that participants more closely followed its predictions. Furthermore, showing participants a clear model meant that they were less able to detect and correct for the model’s sizable mistakes, seemingly due to information overload. These counterintuitive findings emphasize the importance of testing over intuition when developing interpretable models.
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
“Some researchers measure subjective trust using questionnaires, while others measure objective trust related behavior such as reliance.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While WOA has been used in the past by researchers in XAI as an alternative trust measurement (Logg et al., 2019; Mucha et al., 2021; Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al., 2021), it has never been explicitly referred to as reliance and thus clearly differentiated from trust to the best of our knowledge.”
From Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance (2023) · cites this paper as Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, across many domains, empirical studies of explanations have produced mixed results [4,11,49,53,58,68,82,87], with some suggesting that explanations increase decisionmakers' tendency to rely on AI predictions even when the AI system is wrong [4,68,82,87]-a phenomenon often referred to as overreliance [10,78].”
From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On the contrary, several studies found that showing feature-based explanations increases people's tendency to over-rely on the model when it is wrong, compared to showing only the AI predictions [4,68,82,87].”
From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Such explanations often do not match the end-users' mental models [56], making the explanations ineective [2,40,65] and at times even harmful [13,28,30,47,51].”
From Being Trustworthy is Not Enough: How Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Deceive the End-Users and Gain Their Trust (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Work in the human–computer interaction community has identified that increased transparency can hamper users’ ability to detect sizable model errors and correct for them, “seemingly due to information overload””
From The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and evidence suggests models that use explainability techniques can hamper people's ability to detect when a model makes serious mistakes”
From The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, many empirical studies on human-AI decision-making did not observe complementary performance [6,16,37,52,58,61,68,82,84,87].”
From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“naive application of existing XAI methods may be ineective [2,40,65] to broader audience of end-users, if not harmful [28,47,49,51].”
From Being Trustworthy is Not Enough: How Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Deceive the End-Users and Gain Their Trust (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and that providing too much detail may reduce user performance due to information overload [44].”
From Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals’ perspectives (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“a study by Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. [48] found that more 'clear' models can actually lead to information overload and hinder people's ability to detect AI errors.”
From Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior (2023) · cites this paper as Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. [48]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, they choose to use the task of real estate valuation, and how it relates to a decision and an outcome of interest and the utility of explanations in achieving that goal was not established.”
From Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions (2023) · cites this paper as Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Algorithmic transparency similarly reduces people's ability to detect and correct model errors”
From The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al., 2021
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The complexity of tasks plays a signifcant role in determining the degree of reliance on AI advice, consistent with the fndings of [9, 105].”
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 [105]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Many studies have found that cognitive biases (particularly anchoring bias and automation bias more broadly) can lead users to misunderstand model behavior and place unwarranted trust in AI systems [20, 34, 52, 55].”
From Interactive Model Cards: A Human-Centered Approach to Model Documentation (2022) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“Previous works show that the availability of AI's explanations, regardless of their correctness, is likely to increase people's trust in AI [6,54,81,100].”
From Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making (2023) · cites this paper as [81]
In the citing paper
“Many studies have investigated the role of AI in assisting humans in making individual decisions [9,16,36, 37, 50, 51, 55, 58, 69, 83, 84, 89], e.g., predicting whether a person will recidivate in the near future.”
From Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation (2022) · cites this paper as [69]
In the citing paper
“However, recent research has shown that the recommendation-driven explainable/interpretable AI has little effect on decision making [1, 6-8, 28, 32], although this is not always the case [22,23,41].”
From Explainable AI is Dead, Long Live Explainable AI!: Hypothesis-driven Decision Support using Evaluative AI (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Classification and Regression Trees.
Ryzin, J. V., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288003 · Cited by 21,030
"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
Gauriat, C.-M., Pencolé, Y., Ribot, P., et al. (2024) · HAL · doi:10.4230/oasics.dx.2024.27 · Cited by 12,623
Rudin, C. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · Cited by 10,561
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340 · Cited by 5,427
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica (2016).
- 10.2139/ssrn.3465622 · DOI · Paper page
- Philip Johnson-Laird. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
- Jongbin Jung, Connor Concannon, Ravi Shroff, Sharad Goel, and Daniel G Goldstein. 2020. Simple rules to guide expert classifications. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) (2020).
- 10.5555/3305381.3305576 · DOI
- Zachary C Lipton. 2016. The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490(2016). · arXiv
- Jennifer M. Logg. 2017. Theory of Machine: When Do People Rely on Algorithms? (2017). Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 17-086.
- 10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
- Don A. Norman. 1987. Some Observations on Mental Models. In Human-Computer Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach, R. M. Baecker and W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 241–244.
- Christian Rudder. 2014. Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity–What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves. Crown.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2870052 · Cited by 6,294
The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care
Ghassemi, M., Oakden-Rayner, L., & Beam, A. L. (2021) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00208-9 · Cited by 1,724
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjae044 · Cited by 1,083
A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning
Burkart, N., & Huber, M. F. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.12228 · Cited by 1,008
Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges
Rudin, C., Chen, C., Chen, Z., Huang, H., Semenova, L., & Zhong, C. (2022) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/21-ss133 · Cited by 958
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 · Cited by 882
“The next observation of note is that few of the available tools surveyed provide meaningful ways to assess, and respond to, the impact that the data-processing involved in their ML algorithm has on an individual, and even less on the impact on society as a whole (Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. 2018).”
BackgroundMarkus, A. F., Kors, J. A., & Rijnbeek, P. R. (2021) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103655 · Cited by 811
Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.14779 · Cited by 754
Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445717 · Cited by 757
“Their models’ predictions resulted in lowest error (See Figure 6 in [55]).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInterpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges
Molnar, C., Casalicchio, G., & Bischl, B. (2020) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_28 · Cited by 677
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633
Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
Li, B., Qi, P., Liu, B., Di, S., Liu, J., Pei, J., Yi, J., & Zhou, B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3555803 · Cited by 612
“, user satisfaction, mental models, and trust [144, 155, 267].”
BackgroundNotions of explainability and evaluation approaches for explainable artificial intelligence
Vilone, G., & Longo, L. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.009 · Cited by 598
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
Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems
Ehsan, U., Liao, Q. V., Muller, M., Riedl, M. O., & Weisz, J. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445188 · Cited by 538
Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models
Yin, M., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300509 · Cited by 527
Self-citationBeyond Accuracy: The Role of Mental Models in Human-AI Team Performance
Bansal, G., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Lasecki, W. S., Weld, D. S., & Horvitz, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5285 · Cited by 466
Transparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems
Schmidt, P., Biessmann, F., & Teubner, T. (2020) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1819094 · Cited by 440
Thieme, A., Belgrave, D., & Doherty, G. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3398069 · Cited by 406
Co-Designing a Real-Time Classroom Orchestration Tool to Support Teacher–AI Complementarity
Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. A. W. M. M. (2019) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2019.62.3 · Cited by 429
AI in Health: State of the Art, Challenges, and Future Directions
Wang, F., & Preininger, A. (2019) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677908 · Cited by 398
Towards Automatic Concept-based Explanations
Ghorbani, A., Wexler, J., Zou, J., & Kim, B. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.03129 · Cited by 378
Explanations in Autonomous Driving: A Survey
Omeiza, D., Webb, H., Jirotka, M., & Kunze, L. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2021.3122865 · Cited by 355
Challenges of Real-World Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Dulac-Arnold, G., Mankowitz, D. J., & Hester, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.12901 · Cited by 638
What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Use
Tonekaboni, S., Joshi, S., McCradden, M. D., & Goldenberg, A. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.05134 · Cited by 318
Generative Adversarial Networks for face generation: A survey
Kammoun, A., Slama, R., Tabia, H., Ouni, T., & Abid, M. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1122445.1122456 · Cited by 370
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07213 · Cited by 306
“This is already the case in regulated domains such as finance [78].”
BackgroundDisparate Interactions: An Algorithm-in-the-Loop Analysis of Fairness in Risk Assessments
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 · Cited by 275
Towards Human-Centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Y., Leemann, T., Nguyen, T.-T., Fiedler, L., Qian, P., Unhelkar, V., Seidel, T., Kasneci, G., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3331846 · Cited by 278
The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms
Green, B. (2022) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105681 · Cited by 263
Four principles of explainable artificial intelligence
Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Fontana, P. C., Yates, A. N., Greene, K., Broniatowski, D. A., & Przybocki, M. A. (2021) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8312 · Cited by 262
Amann, J., Vetter, D., Blomberg, S. N., Christensen, H. C., Coffee, M., Gerke, S., Gilbert, T. K., Hagendorff, T., Holm, S., Livne, M., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000016 · Cited by 251
“Explainability also enables users to verify that the system does not rely on artifacts or noise in the training data, and can be used to assess whether the system is fair in its decisions, particularly when training data may include a biased or incomplete picture of the population [36].”
BackgroundInfluentialAbbas, Q., Jeong, W., & Lee, S. W. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13172154 · Cited by 236
“Others emphasized the need for adjustable granularity of explanations i.e., providing both overview and drill-down levels of insight [51,125,126].”
Interpretable Machine Learning
Boehmke, B., & Greenwell, B. (2019) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780367816377-16 · Cited by 276
What is Human-Centered about Human-Centered AI? A Map of the Research Landscape
Capel, T., & Brereton, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580959 · Cited by 228
Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures
Kumar, I. E., Venkatasubramanian, S., Scheidegger, C., & Friedler, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.11097 · Cited by 228
Hohman, F., Head, A., Caruana, R., DeLine, R. A., & Drucker, S. M. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300809 · Cited by 252
Human factors in model interpretability: Industry practices, challenges, and needs
Hong, S. R., Hullman, J., & Bertini, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3392878 · Cited by 219
The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's PerspectivePreprint
Krishna, S., Han, T., Gu, A., Jabbari, S., Wu, Z. S., & Lakkaraju, H. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2963888/v1 · Cited by 404
Three Challenges for AI-Assisted Decision-Making
Steyvers, M., & Kumar, A. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231181102 · Cited by 217
A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare: Why, How, and When?
Bharati, S., Mondal, M. R. H., & Podder, P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2023.3266418 · Cited by 251
Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations
Schemmer, M., Kuehl, N., Benz, C., Bartos, A., & Satzger, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584066 · Cited by 208
“recommendation, especially in cases where the AI advice is wrong [6, 57, 63].”
BackgroundA Survey of Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Smart Cities
Javed, A. R., Ahmed, W., Pandya, S., Maddikunta, P. K. R., Alazab, M., & Gadekallu, T. R. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12041020 · Cited by 217
Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations
Bhatt, U., Weller, A., & Moura, J. M. F. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/417 · Cited by 267
Rapid Trust Calibration through Interpretable and Uncertainty-Aware AI
Tomsett, R., Preece, A., Braines, D., Cerutti, F., Chakraborty, S., Srivastava, M., Pearson, G., & Kaplan, L. (2020) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2020.100049 · Cited by 186
Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction
Kim, S. S. Y., Watkins, E. A., Russakovsky, O., Fong, R., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581001 · Cited by 233
A literature review on applications of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)
Kalasampath, K., Spoorthi, K. N., Sajeev, S., Kuppa, S. S., Ajay, K., & Maruthamuthu, A. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3546681 · Cited by 180
Adversarial attacks and defenses in explainable artificial intelligence: A survey
Baniecki, H., & Biecek, P. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102303 · Cited by 234
Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making
Rastogi, C., Zhang, Y., Wei, D., Varshney, K. R., Dhurandhar, A., & Tomsett, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512930 · Cited by 216
Should AI models be explainable to clinicians?
Abgrall, G., Holder, A. L., Chelly Dagdia, Z., Zeitouni, K., & Monnet, X. (2024) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-024-05005-y · Cited by 175
Explainability scenarios: towards scenario-based XAI design
Wolf, C. T. (2019) · International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302317 · Cited by 153
Miller, T. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594001 · Cited by 172
Mathew, D. E., Ebem, D. U., Ikegwu, A. C., Ukeoma, P. E., & Dibiaezue, N. F. (2025) · Neural Processing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11063-025-11732-2 · Cited by 168
Keane, M. T., Kenny, E. M., Delaney, E. D., & Smyth, B. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/609 · Cited by 203
Designing for human–AI complementarity in K‐12 education
Holstein, K., & Aleven, V. (2022) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.12058 · Cited by 156
Narayanan, M., Chen, E., He, J., Kim, B., Gershman, S., & Doshi-Velez, F. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.00682 · Cited by 153
Materials Acceleration Platforms: On the way to autonomous experimentation
Flores‐Leonar, M. M., Mejía-Mendoza, L. M., Aguilar‐Granda, A., Sánchez-Lengeling, B., Tribukait, H., Amador‐Bedolla, C., & Aspuru‐Guzik, A. (2020) · Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100370 · Cited by 155
Kim, S. S. Y., Liao, Q. V., Vorvoreanu, M., Ballard, S., & Vaughan, J. W. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658941 · Cited by 147
Wischnewski, M., Krämer, N., & Müller, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581197 · Cited by 146
“Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. [108] found that providing users with more information (through increased interpretability and transparency) decreased the user’s capabilities to detect and correct mistakes by the system.”
BackgroundHuman-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation
Lai, V., Carton, S., Bhatnagar, R., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., & Tan, C. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501999 · Cited by 145
Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations
Chen, V., Liao, Q. V., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Bansal, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610219 · Cited by 220
“decision tasks with different data types including text data [4, 49, 54], tabular data [61, 73, 78], and image data [10, 45].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUnderstanding artificial intelligence ethics and safetyPreprint
Leslie, D. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.05684 · Cited by 308
It's complicated: the relationship between user trust, model accuracy and explanations in AI
Papenmeier, A., Kern, D., Englebienne, G., & Seifert, C. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3495013 · Cited by 144
Ma, S., Lei, Y., Wang, X., Zheng, C., Shi, C., Yin, M., & Ma, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581058 · Cited by 143
Kawakami, A., Sivaraman, V., Cheng, H.-F., Stapleton, L., Cheng, Y., Qing, D., Perer, A., Wu, Z. S., Zhu, H., & Holstein, K. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517439 · Cited by 143
You, S., Yang, C., & Li, X. (2022) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2022.2063553 · Cited by 165
A multi-objective approach for profit-driven feature selection in credit scoring
Kozodoi, N., Lessmann, S., Papakonstantinou, K., Gatsoulis, Y., & Baesens, B. (2019) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2019.03.011 · Cited by 141
Kliegr, T., Bahník, Š., & Fürnkranz, J. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103458 · Cited by 139
Contemporary Symbolic Regression Methods and their Relative Performance
Cava, W. L., Orzechowski, P., Burlacu, B., de França, F. O., Virgolin, M., Jin, Y., Kommenda, M., & Moore, J. H. (2021) · PubMed · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.14351 · Cited by 257
Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Fontana, P. C., Broniatowski, D. A., & Przybocki, M. A. (2020) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8312-draft · Cited by 136
Inkpen, K., Chappidi, S., Mallari, K., Nushi, B., Ramesh, D., Michelucci, P., Mandava, V., Vepřek, L. H., & Quinn, G. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3534561 · Cited by 132
Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models When Performance Feedback is Limited: Heuristics and Risks
Lu, Z., & Yin, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445562 · Cited by 131
Making Better Use of the Crowd: How Crowdsourcing Can Advance Machine Learning Research
Vaughan, J. W. (2018) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · Cited by 131
Artificial intelligence sepsis prediction algorithm learns to say “I don’t know”
Shashikumar, S. P., Wardi, G., Malhotra, A., & Nemati, S. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00504-6 · Cited by 142
How Cognitive Biases Affect XAI-assisted Decision-making: A Systematic Review
Bertrand, A., Belloum, R., Eagan, J. R., & Maxwell, W. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534164 · Cited by 129
Interpretable to Whom? A Role-based Model for Analyzing Interpretable Machine Learning Systems
Tomsett, R., Braines, D., Harborne, D., Preece, A. D., & Chakraborty, S. (2018) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.07552 · Cited by 127
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2021) · Philosophical studies series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_10 · Cited by 202
Towards Accountable AI: Hybrid Human-Machine Analyses for Characterizing System Failure
Nushi, B., Kamar, E., & Horvitz, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v6i1.13337 · Cited by 126
An Evaluation of the Human-Interpretability of Explanation
Lage, I., Chen, E., He, J., Narayanan, M., Kim, B., Gershman, S., & Doshi-Velez, F. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.00006 · Cited by 125
EXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)—From Theory to Methods and Applications
Ortigossa, E. S., Gonçalves, T., & Nonato, L. G. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3409843 · Cited by 124
Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences
Liao, Q. V., & Varshney, K. R. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.10790 · Cited by 120
Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales
Wiegreffe, S., Marasović, A., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.804 · Cited by 119
Dhanorkar, S., Wolf, C. T., Qian, K., Xu, A., Popa, L., & Li, Y. (2021) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3461778.3462131 · Cited by 119
Human Evaluation of Models Built for Interpretability
Lage, I., Chen, E., He, J., Narayanan, M., Kim, B., Gershman, S. J., & Doshi‐Velez, F. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5280 · Cited by 114
Smith-Renner, A., Fan, R., Birchfield, M., Wu, T., Boyd-Graber, J., Weld, D. S., & Findlater, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376624 · Cited by 112
XAI Systems Evaluation: A Review of Human and Computer-Centred Methods
Lopes, P., Silva, E., Braga, C., Oliveira, T., & Rosado, L. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12199423 · Cited by 112
Liu, H., Lai, V., & Tan, C. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479552 · Cited by 111
Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging
Fogliato, R., Chappidi, S., Lungren, M. P., Fisher, P., Wilson, D., Fitzke, M., Parkinson, M., Horvitz, E., Inkpen, K. M., & Nushi, B. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533193 · Cited by 131
Does Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making?
Alufaisan, Y., Marusich, L. R., Bakdash, J. Z., Zhou, Y., & Kantarcioglu, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16819 · Cited by 106
Silva, A., Schrum, M., Hedlund-Botti, E., Gopalan, N., & Gombolay, M. (2023) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2101698 · Cited by 104
Effect of AI Explanations on Human Perceptions of Patient-Facing AI-Powered Healthcare Systems
Zhang, Z., Genc, Y., Wang, D., Ahsen, M. E., & Fan, X. (2021) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-021-01743-6 · Cited by 111
Suresh, H., Gomez, S. R., Nam, K. K., & Satyanarayan, A. (2021) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 103
Interactive Model Cards: A Human-Centered Approach to Model Documentation
Crisan, A., Drouhard, M., Vig, J., & Rajani, N. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533108 · Cited by 101
Building more accurate decision trees with the additive tree
Luna, J. M., Gennatas, E. D., Ungar, L., Eaton, E., Diffenderfer, E. S., Jensen, S. T., Simone, C. B., Friedman, J. H., Solberg, T. D., & Valdés, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1816748116 · Cited by 101
Green learning: Introduction, examples and outlook
Kuo, C. ‐. J., & Madni, A. M. (2022) · Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation · doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2022.103685 · Cited by 119
Rechkemmer, A., & Yin, M. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501967 · Cited by 97
Explainable Artificial Intelligence Approaches: A SurveyPreprint
Islam, S. R., Eberle, W., Ghafoor, S., & Ahmed, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.09429 · Cited by 168
AI in medical diagnosis: AI prediction & human judgment
Göndöcs, D., & Dörfler, V. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2024.102769 · Cited by 108
Explainable Artificial Intelligence: a Systematic Review
Vilone, G., & Longo, L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.00093 · Cited by 269
Topic modeling in software engineering research
Silva, C. C., Galster, M., & Gilson, F. (2021) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-021-10026-0 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Microsoft Research, United States
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-05-06
- Pages
- 1-52
- OpenAlex
- W2788362053
- Semantic Scholar
- 2f4e42ab1368b83e38e3011fcec4edb57267b5d2
- Cited by
- 728
- References
- 116
- Citations by year
- 2026: 94 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 90
- FWCI
- 48.67
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- model interpretability, explainable AI, black-box models, model transparency, feature count, error detection, information overload, trust in machine learning, pre-registered experiment
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
