The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data-Centric Explanations: Explaining Training Data of Machine Learning Systems to Promote Transparency
Open accessAbstract
Training datasets fundamentally impact the performance of machine learning (ML) systems. Any biases introduced during training (implicit or explicit) are often reflected in the system's behaviors leading to questions about fairness and loss of trust in the system. Yet, information on training data is rarely communicated to stakeholders. In this work, we explore the concept of data-centric explanations for ML systems that describe the training data to end-users. Through a formative study, we investigate the potential utility of such an approach, including the information about training data that participants find most compelling. In a second study, we investigate reactions to our explanations across four different system scenarios. Our results suggest that data-centric explanations have the potential to impact how users judge the trustworthiness of a system and to assist users in assessing fairness. We discuss the implications of our findings for designing explanations to support users’ perceptions of ML systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Practical approaches to implement such ideas typically revolve around the systematic collection and curation of data on various aspects of systems [2, 28, 46].”
From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
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
“Work on AI safety and reproducibility has long pointed out the crucial importance of training data for understanding model performance, ensuring reproducibility, and assessing legal exposure [2, 25, 29, 46, 58].”
From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For instance, previous studies have shown that data-centric explanations [7] have the potential to assist users in assessing fairness.”
From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
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
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
"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
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
“Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-3020 · Cited by 6,682
On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure.
Colquitt, J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 · Cited by 6,043
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340 · Cited by 5,427
Labeled Faces in the Wild: A Database forStudying Face Recognition in Unconstrained Environments
Huang, G. B., Mattar, M., Berg, T. L., & Miller, E. G. (2008) · HAL · Cited by 4,445
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Liliana Ardissono, Anna Goy, Giovanna Petrone, Marino Segnan, and Pietro Torasso. 2003. Intrigue: Personalized Recommendation of Tourist Attractions. Applied Artificial Intelligence: Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries 17, 8–9: 687–714.
- 10.15779/Z38BG31 · DOI · Paper page
- Zhengping Che, Sanjay Purushotham, Robinder Khemani, and Yan Liu. 2016. Interpretable Deep Models for ICU Outcome Prediction. AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium 2016: 371–380.
- 10.18653/v1 · DOI
- Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, and Sharad Goel. 2016. A computer program used for bail and sentencing decisions was labeled biased against blacks . It’ s actually not that clear. The Washington Post: 1–7.
- Ben Green and Lily Hu. 2018. The Myth in the Methodology: Towards a Recontextualization of Fairness in Machine Learning. Proceedings of the machine learning: the debates workshop.
- Lauren Kirchner, Surya Mattu, Jeff Larson, and Julia Angwin. 2016. Machine Bias. Propublica 23: 1–26. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
- Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07810 · arXiv
- 10.18653/v1 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–104 of 104
Schmude, T., Pahr, D., Koesten, L. M., Möller, T. B., & Tschiatschek, S. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812271
The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the “Ground Truth” Illusion in Data Annotation
Munir, S., Mah, B., Kalsi, K., Kapania, S., Posada, J., Law, E., Wang, D., & Ahmed, S. I. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806510 · Cited by 1
Law, E., & Yin, M. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108872225.008
Doing Human-Centered Machine Learning
Fiebrink, R., Gillies, M. F. P., & Ramos, G. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108872225.006
Metadata
- Authors
- Anik, A. I., & Bunt, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Manitoba (CA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-05-06
- Pages
- 1-13
- OpenAlex
- W3160343688
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 8.55
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Mspace (University of Manitoba) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- training data transparency, explainable machine learning, algorithmic fairness, training data bias, stakeholder communication, formative research
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
