Cited by 67Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AISoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Towards relatable explainable AI with the perceptual process

Open access
Zhang, Wencan, Lim, Brian Y·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Machine learning models need to provide contrastive explanations, since people often seek to understand why a puzzling prediction occurred instead of some expected outcome. Current contrastive explanations are rudimentary comparisons between examples or raw features, which remain difficult to interpret, since they lack semantic meaning. We argue that explanations must be more relatable to other concepts, hypotheticals, and associations. Inspired by the perceptual process from cognitive psychology, we propose the XAI Perceptual Processing Framework and RexNet model for relatable explainable AI with Contrastive Saliency, Counterfactual Synthetic, and Contrastive Cues explanations. We investigated the application of vocal emotion recognition, and implemented a modular multi-task deep neural network to predict and explain emotions from speech. From think-aloud and controlled studies, we found that counterfactual explanations were useful and further enhanced with semantic cues, but not saliency explanations. This work provides insights into providing and evaluating relatable contrastive explainable AI for perception applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3501826

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Sven Coppers, Jan Van den Bergh, Kris Luyten, Karin Coninx, Iulianna Van der Lek-Ciudin, Tom Vanallemeersch, and Vincent Vandeghinste. 2018. Intellingo: an intelligible translation environment. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference CHI '22, April 29-May 5, 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-13.
  2. Dedre Gentner and Linsey Smith. 2012. Analogical reasoning. Encyclopedia of human behavior 2 (2012), 130-136.
  3. Yash Goyal, Ziyan Wu, Jan Ernst, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Counterfactual visual explanations. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2376-2384.
  4. Lisa Anne Hendricks, Ronghang Hu, Trevor Darrell, and Zeynep Akata. 2018. Generating Counterfactual Explanations with Natural Language. In ICML Work- shop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning. 95-98.
  5. Andreas Krug, René Knaebel, and Sebastian Stober. 2018. Neuron activation profiles for interpreting convolutional speech recognition models. In NeurIPS Workshop on Interpretability and Robustness in Audio, Speech, and Language (IRASL).
  6. Zachary C Lipton. 2018. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue 16, 3 (2018), 31-57.
  7. Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev, and Ludwig Schubert. 2017. Feature visual- ization. Distill 2, 11 (2017), e7.
  8. Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. 2015. Unsupervised represen- tation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434 (2015). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, W., & Lim, B. Y.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-24
OpenAlex
W4225014345
Cited by
67
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 5
FWCI
7.60
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Ministry of Education, Singapore (T2EP20121-0040)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
explainable AI, contrastive explanations, perceptual processing, cognitive psychology, counterfactual explanations, semantic cues, vocal emotion recognition, think-aloud study, multi-task deep neural network

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