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
Items 301–400 of 718
Mok, L., Nanda, S., & Anderson, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610100 · Cited by 22
Trust in Machine Learning Driven Clinical Decision Support Tools Among Otolaryngologists
Chen, H. Y., Ma, X., Rives, H., Serpedin, A., Yao, P., & Rameau, A. (2024) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.31260 · Cited by 18
Interpretable machine learning for time-to-event prediction in medicine and healthcare
Baniecki, H., Sobieski, B., Szatkowski, P., Bombiński, P., & Biecek, P. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2024.103026 · Cited by 20
Crowdsourcing – A Step Towards Advanced Machine Learning
Abhigna, B. S., Soni, N., & Dixit, S. (2018) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.062 · Cited by 22
Šimić, I., Veas, E. E., & Sabol, V. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-09538-2 · Cited by 23
Osman, K. A. Y. A., Shah, A. F. M. S., Karabulut, M. A., Karahan, S. N., Osmanca, M. S., & Acır, N. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3663161 · Cited by 24
Interpretable and Adaptable Early Warning Learning Analytics Model
Sohail, S., Alvi, A., & Khanum, A. (2021) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2022.023560 · Cited by 17
Can local explanation techniques explain linear additive models?
Rahnama, A. H. A., Bütepage, J., Geurts, P., & Boström, H. (2023) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-023-00971-3 · Cited by 17
Lammert, O., Richter, B., Schütze, C., Thommes, K., & Wrede, B. (2024) · Frontiers in Behavioral Economics · doi:10.3389/frbhe.2024.1377075 · Cited by 22
Pafla, M., Larson, K. S., & Hancock, M. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642934 · Cited by 19
Mind The Gap: Designers and Standards on Algorithmic System Transparency for Users
Schor, B. G. S., Norval, C., Charlesworth, E., & Singh, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642531 · Cited by 17
Jin, J., Xing, S., Ji, E., & Liu, W. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25072183 · Cited by 19
Constraints-Based Explanations of Classifications
Deutch, D., & Frost, N. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2019.00054 · Cited by 20
Effects of Agents’ Transparency on Teamwork
Tulli, S., Correia, F., Mascarenhas, S. F., Gomes, S., Melo, F. S., & Paiva, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4_2 · Cited by 17
Ghai, B., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R., & Mueller, K. D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.09219 · Cited by 17
A Review of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in ManufacturingPreprint
Sofianidis, G., Rožanec, J. M., Mladenić, D., & Kyriazis, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.02295 · Cited by 17
Pickering, L., Cohen, K. D. O., & Bernard De Baets, C. (2025) · International Journal of Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1007/s40815-025-02022-z · Cited by 21
On the Lack of Robust Interpretability of Neural Text Classifiers
Zafar, M. B., Donini, M., Slack, D., Archambeau, C., Das, S. R., & Kenthapadi, K. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.327 · Cited by 23
Wang, X., Chen, L., & Yin, M. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/343 · Cited by 21
Vasilaras, A., Papadoudis, N., & Rizomiliotis, P. (2024) · Forensic Science International Digital Investigation · doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301737 · Cited by 16
Investigating Trust in Human-AI Collaboration for a Speech-Based Data Analytics Task
Tutul, A. A., Nirjhar, E. H., & Chaspari, T. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2328910 · Cited by 19
A Study on Trust in Black Box Models and Post-hoc Explanations
Bekri, N. E., Kling, J., & Huber, M. F. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20055-8_4 · Cited by 16
Can You Explain That? Lucid Explanations Help Human-AI Collaborative Image Retrieval
Ray, A., Yao, Y., Kumar, R., Divakaran, A., & Burachas, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5275 · Cited by 16
The promises and perils of automated facial action coding in studying children’s emotions.
Martı́nez, A. M. (2019) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000728 · Cited by 15
Do Input Gradients Highlight Discriminative Features?Preprint
Shah, H., Jain, P., & Netrapalli, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12781 · Cited by 23
Dogru, E. Ö., & Krämer, N. C. (2025) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2025.2593251 · Cited by 15
“…DSS and the system’s actual performance capabilities (Merritt et al., 2015), whereas appropriate reliance refers to a user’s ability to appropriately act on AI advice, specifically, to accept correct advice and reject incorrect advice (Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al., 2021; Schemmer et al., 2022).”
Mind the gap between research and practice in operations management
Chen, X., Deng, T., Shen, Z. M., & Yu, Y. F. (2022) · IISE Transactions · doi:10.1080/24725854.2022.2046893 · Cited by 17
Interpretable Local Concept-based Explanation with Human Feedback to Predict All-cause Mortality
Shawi, R. E., & Al-Mallah, M. H. (2022) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.14019 · Cited by 17
Evaluating machine-generated explanations: a “Scorecard” method for XAI measurement science
Hoffman, R. R., Jalaeian, M., Tate, C., Klein, G. A., & Mueller, S. T. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1114806 · Cited by 15
Be careful what you explain: Benefits and costs of explainable AI in a simulated medical task
Rieger, T., Manzey, D., Meussling, B., Onnasch, L., & Roesler, E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100021 · Cited by 17
Kaur, H., Conrad, M. R., Rule, D., Lampe, C. A. C., & Gilbert, É. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637354 · Cited by 17
Establishing Appropriate Trust in AI through Transparency and Explainability
Kim, S. S. Y. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3638184 · Cited by 21
Beyond Recommendations: From Backward to Forward AI Support of Pilots' Decision-Making Process
Zhang, Z. T., Feger, S. S., Dullenkopf, L., Liao, R., Süsslin, L. E., Liu, Y., & Butz, A. M. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687024 · Cited by 22
Thornton, L., Knowles, B., & Blair, G. S. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445871 · Cited by 22
The challenges of providing explanations of AI systems when they do not behave like users expect
Riveiro, M., & Thill, S. (2022) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3503252.3531306 · Cited by 20
Unexplainability and Incomprehensibility of Artificial IntelligencePreprint
Yampolskiy, R. V. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.03869 · Cited by 15
Should AI-Enabled Medical Devices be Explainable?
Matulionytė, R., Nolan, P., Magrabi, F., & Beheshti, A. (2022) · International Journal of Law and Information Technology · doi:10.1093/ijlit/eaac015 · Cited by 14
Balagopalan, A., Madras, D., Yang, D., Hadfield-Menell, D., Hadfield, G. K., & Ghassemi, M. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq0701 · Cited by 19
Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge
Kawakami, A., Guerdan, L., Cheng, Y., Glazko, K. S., Lee, M. L., Carter, S., Aréchiga, N., Zhu, H., & Holstein, K. (2023) · ACM Collective Intelligence Conference (CI) · doi:10.1145/3582269.3615595 · Cited by 18
Generating sparse explanations for malicious Android opcode sequences using hierarchical LIME
Mitchell, J., McLaughlin, N., & del Rincón, J. M. (2023) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2023.103637 · Cited by 14
Towards Balancing Preference and Performance through Adaptive Personalized Explainability
Silva, A., Tambwekar, P., Schrum, M., & Gombolay, M. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3610977.3635000 · Cited by 14
A Multi-layered Approach for Tailored Black-Box Explanations
Henin, C., & Métayer, D. L. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68796-0_1 · Cited by 14
Leffrang, D., & Muller, O. (2021) · IEEE Workshop on TRust and EXpertise in Visual Analytics (TREX) · doi:10.1109/trex53765.2021.00009 · Cited by 14
Backward recursive Class Activation Map refinement for high resolution saliency map
Englebert, A., Cornu, O., & Vleeschouwer, C. D. (2022) · Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition/Proceedings/International Conference on Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/icpr56361.2022.9956711 · Cited by 14
CounterNet: End-to-End Training of Prediction Aware Counterfactual Explanations
Guo, H., Nguyen, T. H., & Yadav, A. (2023) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599290 · Cited by 18
Transparent Interaction Based Learning for Human-Robot Collaboration
Bagheri, E., Winter, J. D., & Vanderborght, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.754955 · Cited by 13
Explainable Neural Rule Learning
Shi, S., Xie, Y., Wang, Z., Ding, B., Li, Y., & Zhang, M. (2022) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512023 · Cited by 14
Explainability, Public Reason, and Medical Artificial Intelligence
Silva, M. D. (2023) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-023-10390-4 · Cited by 13
Investigating the Benefits of Free-Form Rationales
Sun, J., Swayamdipta, S., May, J., & Ma, X. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.432 · Cited by 23
Machine learning in healthcare and the methodological priority of epistemology over ethics
Grote, T. (2024) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2024.2312207 · Cited by 14
The Impact of Explanations on Fairness in Human-AI Decision-Making: Protected vs Proxy Features
Goyal, N., Baumler, C., Nguyen, T. T., & Daumé, H. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645210 · Cited by 20
AI-Powered Crisis Response: Streamlining Emergency Management with LLMs
Otal, H. T., & Canbaz, M. A. (2024) · IEEE World Forum on Public Safety Technology (WF-PST) · doi:10.1109/wfpst58552.2024.00009 · Cited by 13
McCradden, M. D., Thai, K., Assadi, A., Tonekaboni, S., Stedman, I., Joshi, S. D., Zhang, M., Chevalier, F., & Goldenberg, A. (2025) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112919 · Cited by 18
CrossCheck: Rapid, Reproducible, and Interpretable Model Evaluation
Arendt, D., Shaw, Z., Shrestha, P., Ayton, E., Glenski, M., & Volkova, S. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.dash-1.13 · Cited by 15
Explainable Cross-Topic Stance Detection for Search Results
Draws, T., Ramamurthy, K. N., Baldini, I., Dhurandhar, A., Padhi, I., Timmermans, B., & Tintarev, N. (2023) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3576840.3578296 · Cited by 13
Debiased-CAM to mitigate image perturbations with faithful visual explanations of machine learning
Zhang, W., Dimiccoli, M., & Lim, B. Y. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517522 · Cited by 21
Machine learning in sports medicine: need for improvement
Martin, R. K., Pareek, A., Krych, A. J., Kremers, H. M., & Engebretsen, L. (2021) · Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/jisakos-2020-000572 · Cited by 13
Knowing (Not) to Know: Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Human Metacognition
von Zahn, M., Liebich, L., Jussupow, E., Hinz, O. F., & Bauer, K. (2025) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2024.1431 · Cited by 21
A Human-Centric Perspective on Model Monitoring
Shergadwala, M., Lakkaraju, H., & Kenthapadi, K. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21997 · Cited by 19
Identifying Explanation Needs of End-users: Applying and Extending the XAI Question Bank
Sipos, L., Schäfer, U., Glinka, K., & Müller-Birn, C. (2023) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3603555.3608551 · Cited by 12
On prediction-modelers and decision-makers: why fairness requires more than a fair prediction model
Scantamburlo, T., Baumann, J., & Heitz, C. (2024) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-01886-3 · Cited by 18
Visual Exploration of Machine Learning Model Behavior With Hierarchical Surrogate Rule Sets
Yuan, J., Barr, B., Overton, K., & Bertini, E. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3219232 · Cited by 12
Unconventional Concerns for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence
Cheruvu, R. (2022) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2022.3170423 · Cited by 12
Expl(Ai)Ned: The Impact of Explainable Artificial Intelligence on Cognitive ProcessesPreprint
Bauer, K., von Zahn, M., & Hinz, O. F. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3872711 · Cited by 13
Grote, T. (2023) · Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.5195/pom.2023.139 · Cited by 11
Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased People
Yang, M., Arai, H., Yamashita, N., & Baba, Y. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642627 · Cited by 16
Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Context of Metrology
Adel, T., Bilson, S., Mark Levene, A., & Thompson, A. (2024) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55817-7_4 · Cited by 11
Salimzadeh, S., & Gadiraju, U. (2024) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3627043.3659567 · Cited by 14
Sadeghi, M., Pöttgen, D., Ebel, P., & Vogelsang, A. (2024) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3627043.3659573 · Cited by 16
Explaining AI Decisions: Towards Achieving Human-Centered Explainability in Smart Home Environments
Shajalal, M., Boden, A., Stevens, G., Du, D. K., & Kern, D.-R. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63803-9_23 · Cited by 15
Waterschoot, C., Yera, R., Tintarev, N., & Barile, F. (2025) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3699682.3728345 · Cited by 13
Wang, S., Mei, Y., & Zhang, M. (2020) · IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci47803.2020.9308588 · Cited by 11
Workshop on Trust and Reliance in AI-Human Teams (TRAIT)
Bansal, G., Smith, A., Buçinca, Z., Wu, T., Holstein, K., Hullman, J. R., & Stumpf, S. (2022) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3491101.3503704 · Cited by 12
Manipulating SHAP via Adversarial Data Perturbations (Student Abstract)
Baniecki, H., & Biecek, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21590 · Cited by 11
Grgić-Hlača, N., Castelluccia, C., & Gummadi, K. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21989 · Cited by 13
How Much Should I Trust You? Modeling Uncertainty of Black Box Explanations.Preprint
Slack, D., Hilgard, S., Singh, S., & Lakkaraju, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 11
Should We Trust (X)AI? Design Dimensions for Structured Experimental EvaluationsPreprint
Sperrle, F., El‐Assady, M., Guo, G., Chau, D. H., Endert, A., & Keim, D. A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.06433 · Cited by 20
Ashktorab, Z., Desmond, M., Pan, Q., Johnson, J., Brachman, M., Dugan, C., Danilevsky, M., & Geyer, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work · doi:10.1145/3729176.3729179 · Cited by 10
“However, there is limited evidence to suggest that transparency improves trust, whether through the use of interpretable models or by allowing users to inspect model behavior, providing explanations, or reducing the number of features presented [9, 31, 39].”
Gemalmaz, M. A., & Yin, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534201 · Cited by 10
On the Importance of Application-Grounded Experimental Design for Evaluating Explainable ML Methods
Amarasinghe, K., Rodolfa, K. T., Jesus, S., Chen, V., Balayan, V., Saleiro, P., Bizarro, P., Talwalkar, A., & Ghani, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30082 · Cited by 13
Evaluating Self-attention Interpretability Through Human-Grounded Experimental Protocol
Bhan, M., Achache, N., Legrand, V., Blangero, A., & Chesneau, N. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44070-0_2 · Cited by 13
The Cultivated Practices of Text-to-Image Generation
Oppenlaender, J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66528-8_14 · Cited by 15
Team task complexity analysis in MASS operation using a fuzzy TOPSIS method
Tao, J., Liu, Z., Wang, X., Wang, J., Rao, S., & Yang, Z. (2025) · Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2025.121140 · Cited by 11
Lim, B. Y., Cahaly, J. P., Sng, C. Y. F., & Chew, A. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714058 · Cited by 12
Rieger, T., Onnasch, L., Roesler, E., & Manzey, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2025.3584662 · Cited by 12
On the Interaction of Belief Bias and Explanations
González, A. V., Rogers, A., & Søgaard, A. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.259 · Cited by 14
Beyond Importance Scores: Interpreting Tabular ML by Visualizing Feature Semantics
Ghorbani, A., Berenbaum, D., Ivgi, M., Dafna, Y., & Zou, J. (2021) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13010015 · Cited by 10
An Empirical Evaluation of Predicted Outcomes as Explanations in Human-AI Decision-Making
Jakubik, J., Schoeffer, J., Hoge, V., Vössing, M., & Kühl, N. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23618-1_24 · Cited by 15
Trust and Reliance in Consensus-Based Explanations from an Anti-Misinformation Agent
Ueno, T., Kim, Y., Oura, H., & Seaborn, K. (2023) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3544549.3585713 · Cited by 12
McGrath, S., Mehta, P., Zytek, A., Lage, I., & Lakkaraju, H. (2020) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.06167 · Cited by 30
Extractive and Abstractive Explanations for Fact-Checking and Evaluation of News
Kazemi, A., Li, Z., Pérez‐Rosas, V., & Mihalcea, R. F. (2021) · Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Internet Freedom: Censorship, Disinformation, and Propaganda (NLP4IF) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.nlp4if-1.7 · Cited by 11
Sattarzadeh, S., Sudhakar, M., & Plataniotis, K. N. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw54120.2021.00462 · Cited by 10
Widmer, C. L., Sarker, M. K., Nadella, S., Fiechter, J., Juvina, I., Minnery, B., Hitzler, P., Schwartz, J., & Raymer, M. (2023) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2023.100807 · Cited by 10
AI-Assisted Decision-Making: A Cognitive Modeling Approach to Infer Latent Reliance StrategiesPreprint
Tejeda, H., Kumar, A., Smyth, P., & Steyvers, M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q6yz4 · Cited by 10
Van Dort, B. A., Engelsma, T., Sneekes, P., Peute, L., & Medlock, S. (2026) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001417 · Cited by 9
“…the explanation (5) Express risk as whole-number percentages to reduce confusion Prior research has shown that certain cognitive biases can be amplified by specific explanation styles and designs [43] and that providing too much detail may reduce user performance due to information overload [44].”
Martínez, M. A. M., Nadj, M., Langner, M., Toreini, P., & Maedche, A. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3607145 · Cited by 12
Sanneman, L., Tucker, M., & Shah, J. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659032 · Cited by 16
Rough, K., Rashidi, E., Tai, C. G.-L., Lucia, R. M., Mack, C. D., & Largent, J. A. (2024) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.70041 · Cited by 11
Omeiza, D., Bhattacharyya, R., Jirotka, M. D., Hawes, N., & Kunze, L. (2025) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2025.01.015 · Cited by 9
Explaining AI weaknesses improves human–AI performance in a dynamic control task
Rieger, T., Schindler, H., Onnasch, L., & Roesler, E. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103505 · Cited by 13
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
