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 601–700 of 718
"Why did you do that?": Explaining black box models with Inductive SynthesisPreprint
Paçacı, G., Johnson, D., McKeever, S., & Hamfelt, A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09273
"A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity?Preprint
Woodruff, A., Anderson, Y. A., Armstrong, K. J., Gkiza, M., Jennings, J., Moessner, C., Viégas, F. B., WATTENBERG, M. P., Webb, A. L., Wrede, F., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.00874 · Cited by 10
Researching Human-AI Collaboration through the Design of Language-Based Query Assistance
Pafla, M. (2020) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo)
Learning how to approve updates to machine learning algorithms in non-stationary settingsPreprint
Feng, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07278
Dimensions of Transparency in NLP Applications.Preprint
Saxon, M., Levy, S., Wang, X., Albalak, A., & Wang, W. Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Modeling Discolsive Transparency in NLP Application DescriptionsPreprint
Saxon, M., Levy, S., Wang, X., Albalak, A., & Wang, W. Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Thematic recommendations on knowledge graphs using multilayer networksPreprint
Beguerisse-Díaz, M., Korkinof, D., & Hoffmann, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.05733
Learning User-Interpretable Descriptions of Black-Box AI System Capabilities.Preprint
Verma, P., Marpally, S. R., & Srivastava, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Trusting Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Malicious Nodes Attacks
Mahbooba, B., Timilsina, M., & Serrano, M. (2022) · doi:10.5121/csit.2022.120408
High Resolution Explanation Maps for CNNs using Segmentation Networks
Mascolini, A., Ponzio, F., Macii, E., Ficarra, E., & Cataldo, S. D. (2022) · IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc53370.2022.9833004
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0002
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0003
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.002.0006
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0006
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0004
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0001
Ethics, Justice, and Health AI
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0007
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.002.0003
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.005.0001
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0009
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.003.0008
Graham, S. S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197644461.002.0007
Mulder, W. D. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_11
Willing to Revise? Confidence and Recommendation Adoption in AI-Assisted Image Recognition
Röseler, L., Scholtes, I., Sendhoff, B., & Hannák, A. (2022) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia220222
Designing for Student Understanding of Learning Analytics Algorithms
Yeh, C. V., Cowit, N. Q., & Howley, I. K. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36272-9_43
9 KI-gestützte Entscheidungsunterstützungssysteme im Gesundheitswesen
Gaube, S., & Lermer, E. (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111034706-009 · Cited by 1
Irandoust, H., & Ghajar-Khosravi, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms59971.2024.10555660
T-Explainer: uma abordagem para a explicabilidade em Aprendizado de Máquina baseada em gradientes
Ortigossa, E. S. (2024) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.55.2024.tde-11072024-171752
Lay Theories About Artificial Versus Artificial Intelligence: Rethinking Theory of MachinePreprint
Rebholz, T. R. (2024) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ekz9a · 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
Meng, C., Hou, Y., Zou, Q., Shi, L., Su, X., & Ju, Y. (2024) · Genomics & Informatics · doi:10.1186/s44342-024-00026-z
Can Students Understand AI Decisions Based on Variables Extracted via AutoML?
Tang, L., & Bosch, N. (2024) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831034
Wang, Y., Kannappan, S., Bai, F., Gibson, S. J., & Solomon, C. (2025) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2025.03.032
Succinct Interaction-Aware Explanations
Xu, S., Cüppers, J., & Vreeken, J. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3690624.3709175 · Cited by 2
Could AI Make Legalese Comprehensible to the Public?Preprint
Lee, M., Hofman, J. M., Rothschild, D. M., & Goldstein, D. G. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5220337
Self-citationDiSorbo, M. D., & Ferreira, K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5253399
Lobel, O. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5266605
Phased Evolution of Teacher-AI Collaboration for the Effective Mentoring in Teacher Education
Yoshida, H., Onishi, Y., & Arimoto, M. (2025) · International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) · doi:10.1109/iciet66371.2025.11046291
Forecasting the Impact of Interest Rates on Homebuyer Demand using Machine Learning
Doshi, P. (2025) · International Conference on Self Sustainable Artificial Intelligence Systems (ICSSAS) · doi:10.1109/icssas66150.2025.11081098
MSL: Multi-class Scoring Lists for Interpretable Incremental Decision-Making
Heid, S., Kornowicz, J., Hanselle, J., Thommes, K., & Hüllermeier, E. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08327-2_6
Know Thyself: Exploring Self-Awareness of Execution Skill in Darts
Culmer, J., Sheppard, M., & Archibald, C. (2025) · Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction and Sports (SportsHCI) · doi:10.1145/3749385.3749408
MAGIX: A Unified Framework for the Use of XAI in Enterprises
Sovrano, F., & Miller, T. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01940-0_6 · Cited by 1
Verdeyme, A., Grainger, J. P., Marzia De Lucia, E., & Olhede, S. C. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.11.21.25340725
Vromman, F. V., Kerckhove, C. V., Gagnon, J., Pelletier, C., Dufresne, Y., & Coulombe, S. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.88750
Machinometrics, a new framework towards explainable machine learning in healthcare
Lin, J., Hegde, S., Liu, D., Cheng, K. W., Spallek, H., Xu, C., & Gao, J. (2025) · BMC Methods · doi:10.1186/s44330-025-00031-w
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
Linardos, A., Willem, T., Buyx, A., Hossain, S., Jung, T., Makris, D., & Bakas, S. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02817-6
Beyond the Black Box: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach to Student Dropout Prediction
Pathiranagama, M., Nanayakkara, I., Abeyweera, R., & Halloluwa, T. (2025) · International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC) · doi:10.1109/icac69156.2025.11361534
Backer, T. D., Fabregat‐Sanjuan, A., Solé‐Casals, J., Pascual‐Rubio, V., & Pàmies-Vilà, R. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.02.09.704893
La inteligencia artificial como aliada para un parlamento abierto más transparente y participativo
Núñez, R. R., & Rozas, M. Á. G. (2026) · Revista Española de la Transparencia · doi:10.51915/ret.421
Pavithra, K. G., & Ramkumar, M. (2025) · International Conference on Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (ICONSTEM) · doi:10.1109/iconstem65670.2025.11374486
Jacob, A., & Boyles, C. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05155-4_4
Communicating the Rationale Behind AI Decisions (Explainability)
Andrae, S. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6935-8.ch004
Explainable AI: Tools and Techniques
Kinderkhedia, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15606-8_5
Explainable AI for Well-Being Prediction From Lifestyle Data: 2-Study Design
Vromman, F. V., Kerckhove, C. V., Gagnon, J., Pelletier, C., Dufresne, Y., & Coulombe, S. (2026) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/88750
Rawshan, L. B., Wang, Z., & Lim, B. Y. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789147
Uma, S., Ghosh, S., & Mustaqim, D. D. A. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789130
The HEART Interface: Visualizing Risk Score Uncertainty in the Cardiothoracic ICU
Nourani, M., Nguyen, L., Barry, C. L., Jin, Q., & Tory, M. K. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789109 · Cited by 1
Optimal Explanations: A Quantitative Model of Human Error in Causal Graph Interpretation
Zuercher, P.-D., Bohné, T., & Kristensson, P. O. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789226
Starkova, V., & Howley, I. K. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789153
Shank, D. B., Canfield, C., & Subramanian, H. V. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
From Click to Conscious Choice
Sağlam, M. H. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5525-2.ch004
Thommes, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5290-7_26 · Cited by 1
Efficient and interpretable crash prediction models : An application to a French highway network
Véran, T. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/da454afez2f6cz459azb6f8z6fee5b765954
Explainability for machine learning models : from data adaptability to user perception
Delaunay, J. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/933366c4z576ez464cz9fcfz24627f86dd2f
Interpretable Music Recommender Systems
Afchar, D. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/acfb6676z8613z4e08zad14z98d4a9c2ee74 · Cited by 1
Interpretable and Causal Analysis for Multivariate Time Series
Dhaou, A. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5d446b35z9b19z42afz85e4zf645a7788981
Atienza, N. (2025) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/81053b26z6d53z4f04zacc2zb3dd0156bba4
Advanced Methods for Enhancing the Interpretability of AI tools in the Energy Sector
Parginos, K. (2025) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/eb35a92dz272dz4108z9978za36e7cefd388
Understanding the Affordances of Control in AI Reasoning for Human-AI Decision-Making
Moon, J., Huang, C., & Xiao, Z. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798555
Sensemaking in Multi-Agent LLM Interfaces: How Users Interpret Transparency and Trustworthiness Cues
Pareek, S., Govers, J., Kollerup, N. K., Wong, E., Velloso, E., & Gonçalves, J. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791157 · Cited by 3
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
CoNode: Visualizing Workflows for Knowledge Reuse and Recombination in Team–AI Collaborative Design
Zhou, Y., Xiao, Y., Wei, G., Ling, S., Ma, R., & Leung, C.-S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791216 · Cited by 1
Kang, S., Lee, Y., Lee, G., Yang, H.-J., Kim, S.-H., Shin, J.-E., & Kim, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790674
Ye, Z., Wang, X. Q., Zhang, C., Zhang, R., Sun, M., Li, Q., Yu, C., & Shi, Y. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790922 · Cited by 2
Cordasco, C. L., & Véliz, C. (2026) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-026-06305-9
Trust in Agentic AI: Transparency and Autonomy
Elkhoudary, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15806-2_25
TRuST-M: Evaluating User Trust and Explainability in LLM-Based Web Moderation Systems
Ravi, K., Surale, H. B., & Yuan, J.-S. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3779211.3793172
Yu, X., & Wu, T. (2026) · Journal of Engineering Mechanics · doi:10.1061/jenmdt.emeng-8636
Human-Centered AI in Healthcare
Majumder, N. N., & Adebiyi, B. O. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3658-0_112
Bunde, E. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28316-0_12
Safety Assurance Through Red-Teaming, MLOps, and Continuous Monitoring for Medical LLMs
Pandey, A. K., Sharma, S., Kumar, R., & Kumar, G. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7862-6.ch014
Fredriksdotter, K., Kuratomi, A., & Quintero, L. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.104490
A Four-Stage Framework of Visual Complexity and Trust as Mediated by Effort
Lin, K., Guan, H., Rapp, D. N., & Bearfield, C. X. (2026) · IEEE Pacific Visualization Conference (PacificVis) · doi:10.1109/pacificvis68791.2026.00012
From Curiosity to Caution: How Expertise Shapes the Use of Interpretable Machine Learning
Naqvi, S., Balaji, G., Laju, A., & Kaur, H. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812376
Warren, G., Sun, J., Shklovski, I., & Augenstein, I. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812358 · Cited by 3
Yang, M.-Z., Kagawa, R., & Baba, Y. (2026) · Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812288
Alkhnbashi, O. S., Mohammad, R., Khyriem, C., Hauns, S., Singh, A., Khan, I., Gomez, R. L., Ramachandran, R., Albedwawi, M. H., AbdulRahim, M. M., et al. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11634-2
Ghag, T. S., Pachghare, V., & Patil, C. J. (2026) · International Conference on Next Generation Electronics (NELEX) · doi:10.1109/nelex69209.2026.11590055
Visualising Machine Learning Model Outputs in Data Analytics: A Systematic Review
Marshall, S., Neri, G., Yaghi, A., Chan, H. K.-H., Tabor, D., Sinha, R., & Suvodeep Mazumdar, A. (2026) · Analytics · doi:10.3390/analytics5030024
Guo, M., Agarwal, V., Alghafes, R. A., Papa, G., & Piccolo, L. (2026) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-12-2025-1752
Linguistic Uncertainty Markers for Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision-Making
Spillner, L., Rockstroh, J., Wenig, N., Zargham, N., Kiefner, L., Porzel, R., & Malaka, R. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816231 · Cited by 1
Ouyang, L., Jahng, J., & Woo, S. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2705163
Differential Utility of Explainable AI in Churn Mitigation
Jain, C., Shah, D., Sharma, K., Sharma, P., & Karulkar, Y. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31526-7_32
Kumari, J., Yadav, P., & Bhargava, C. P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8988-2.ch001
Not All Trust Is the Same: Effects of Decision Workflow and Explanations in Human-AI Decision Making
Spillner, L., Ringe, R., Porzel, R., & Malaka, R. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26717-7_15 · Cited by 3
Kaczmarek, S. (2026) · International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET) · doi:10.1109/icecet65726.2026.11632551
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
