CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: Principles and Comparisons

Wang, Xinru, Yin, Ming·2022·ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
DOI 10.1145/3519266
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed the growing literature in empirical evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods. This study contributes to this ongoing conversation by presenting a comparison on the effects of a set of established XAI methods in AI-assisted decision making. Based on our review of previous literature, we highlight three desirable properties that ideal AI explanations should satisfy — improve people’s understanding of the AI model, help people recognize the model uncertainty, and support people’s calibrated trust in the model. Through three randomized controlled experiments, we evaluate whether four types of common model-agnostic explainable AI methods satisfy these properties on two types of AI models of varying levels of complexity, and in two kinds of decision making contexts where people perceive themselves as having different levels of domain expertise. Our results demonstrate that many AI explanations do not satisfy any of the desirable properties when used on decision making tasks that people have little domain expertise in. On decision making tasks that people are more knowledgeable, the feature contribution explanation is shown to satisfy more desiderata of AI explanations, even when the AI model is inherently complex. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for improving the design of XAI methods to better support human decision making, and for advancing more rigorous empirical evaluation of XAI methods.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3519266

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1145/3377325.3377519 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica. See https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (2016).
  3. 10.1016/S0168-1699(99)00046-0 · DOI
  4. 10.1037/a0031354 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/1150402.1150464 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1145/3377325.3377498 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Lars Buitinck, Gilles Louppe, Mathieu Blondel, Fabian Pedregosa, Andreas Mueller, Olivier Grisel, Vlad Niculae, Peter Prettenhofer, Alexandre Gramfort, Jaques Grobler, Robert Layton, Jake VanderPlas, Arnaud Joly, Brian Holt, and Gaël Varoquaux. 2013. API design for machine learning software: Experiences from the scikit-learn project. In ECML PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning. 108–122.
  8. Ruth M. J. Byrne. 2019. Counterfactuals in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Evidence from human reasoning. In IJCAI. 6276–6282.
  9. Eric Chu Deb Roy and Jacob Andreas. 2020. Are Visual Explanations Useful? A Case Study in Model-in-the-Loop Prediction. arxiv:2007.12248 [cs.LG]. · arXiv
  10. 10.1177/0093854801028003005 · DOI
  11. 10.4324/9780203807002 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/978-3-319-07458-0_24 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/978-3-319-26633-6_13 · DOI
  14. 10.1145/3359786 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Aaron Fisher, Cynthia Rudin, and Francesca Dominici. 2019. All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable’s importance by studying an entire class of prediction models simultaneously. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 20, 177 (2019), 1–81.
  16. 10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. Stat 1050 (2015), 9.
  18. 10.1145/3290605.3300809 · DOI
  19. Jongbin Jung, Connor Concannon, Ravi Shroff, Sharad Goel, and Daniel G. Goldstein. 2017. Simple rules for complex decisions. Available at SSRN 2919024 (2017).
  20. Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.
  21. 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103459 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Been Kim, Rajiv Khanna, and Oluwasanmi O. Koyejo. 2016. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! Criticism for interpretability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2280–2288.
  23. Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, et al. 2018. Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (TCAV). In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2668–2677.
  24. John Logan Koepke and David G. Robinson. 2018. Danger ahead: Risk assessment and the future of bail reform. Wash. L. Rev. 93 (2018), 1725.
  25. Josua Krause, Adam Perer, and Enrico Bertini. 2018. A user study on the effect of aggregating explanations for interpreting machine learning models. In ACM KDD Workshop on Interactive Data Exploration and Analytics.
  26. 10.1145/2939672.2939874 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner, and Julia Angwin. 2016. How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica (5 2016) 9, 1 (2016).
  28. 10.1145/2030112.2030168 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4765–4774.
  30. 10.1109/IRI.2017.89 · DOI
  31. 10.4018/IJMDEM.2018010101 · DOI
  32. Maranda McBride and Shona Morgan. 2010. Trust calibration for automated decision aids. Institute for Homeland Security Solutions. [Online]. Available: https://www.ihssnc.org/portals/0/Documents/VIMSDocuments/McBride_Research_Brief.pdf.
  33. 10.1177/0018720814561675 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Christoph Molnar. 2019. Interpretable Machine Learning.
  35. 10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5 · DOI
  36. Barbara A. Oakley. 2014. A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even if you Flunked Algebra). TarcherPerigee.
  37. Bernie J. O’Brien. 1989. Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions in general practice. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 39, 320 (1989), 98–100.
  38. 10.5555/1953048.2078195 · DOI
  39. Amir Hossein Akhavan Rahnama and Henrik Boström. 2019. A study of data and label shift in the LIME framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14421. · arXiv
  40. 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Richard Tomsett, Dave Braines, Dan Harborne, Alun Preece, and Supriyo Chakraborty. 2018. Interpretable to whom? A role-based model for analyzing interpretable machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07552. · arXiv
  43. Jennifer Wortman Vaughan and Hanna Wallach. 2020. A human-centered agenda for intelligible machine learning. Machines We Trust: Getting Along with Artificial Intelligence (2020).
  44. Fulton Wang and Cynthia Rudin. 2015. Falling rule lists. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 1013–1022.
  45. 10.14507/er.v23.1970 · DOI
  46. Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 2048–2057.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 74

Metadata

Authors
Wang, X., & Yin, M.
Affiliations
Purdue University, Indiana, USA
Venue
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2022-11-04
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
1-36
ISSN
  • 2160-6455
  • 2160-6463
DOI
10.1145/3519266
Cited by
74
References
34
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-1850335)

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