CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Watch Out for Updates: Understanding the Effects of Model Explanation Updates in AI-Assisted Decision Making

Wang, Xinru, Yin, Ming·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3544548.3581366
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1145/3544548.3581366

Cites

23 of 23 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

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Julius Adebayo, Justin Gilmer, Michael Muelly, Ian Goodfellow, Moritz Hardt, and Been Kim. 2018. Sanity checks for saliency maps. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018).
  3. Robert Agler and Paul De Boeck. 2017. On the interpretation and use of mediation: multiple perspectives on mediation analysis. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1984.
  4. James L Arbuckle. 2019. Amos 26.0 User’s Guide. Amos Development Corporation, SPSS Inc(2019).
  5. 10.1007/BF00295861 · DOI
  6. Kenneth A Bollen. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. Vol. 210. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Olivier Bousquet and André Elisseeff. 2000. Algorithmic stability and generalization performance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13 (2000).
  8. Timothy A Brown. 2015. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.
  9. 10.1145/1150402.1150464 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1145/3377325.3377498 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Valerie Chen Umang Bhatt Hoda Heidari Adrian Weller and Ameet Talwalkar. 2022. Perspectives on Incorporating Expert Feedback into Model Updates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06905(2022). · DOI
  12. 10.1145/3447535.3462487 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Robert Cudeck. 1993. of Assessing Model Fit. Testing structural equation models 154 (1993), 136.
  14. James A Davis and Robert Philip Weber. 1985. The logic of causal order. Vol. 55. Sage.
  15. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608(2017). · arXiv
  16. Pierre Dragicevic. 2016. Fair statistical communication in HCI. In Modern statistical methods for HCI. Springer, 291–330.
  17. 10.1145/3359786 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1145/3185517 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Leon Festinger. 1962. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford university press.
  20. Aaron Fisher, Cynthia Rudin, and Francesca Dominici. 2018. Model class reliance: Variable importance measures for any machine learning model class, from the “Rashomon” perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01489 68 (2018). · arXiv
  21. 10.1145/3411764.3445555 · DOI
  22. 10.1073/pnas.1906831117 · DOI
  23. James B Grace and Heli Jutila. 1999. The relationship between species density and community biomass in grazed and ungrazed coastal meadows. Oikos (1999), 398–408.
  24. 10.2139/ssrn.3465622 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Andrew F Hayes. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
  26. Geoffrey Hinton Oriol Vinyals and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531(2015). · arXiv
  27. 10.1145/3313831.3376177 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7464 · DOI
  29. Rick H Hoyle. 1995. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
  30. 10.1007/BF02289343 · DOI
  31. Jongbin Jung Connor Concannon Ravi Shroff Sharad Goel and Daniel G Goldstein. 2017. Simple rules for complex decisions. Available at SSRN 2919024(2017). · DOI
  32. John G Kemeny. 1959. Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88, 4 (1959), 577–591.
  33. 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.
  34. Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, 2018. Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav). In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2668–2677.
  35. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04730(2017). · arXiv
  36. Satyapriya Krishna Tessa Han Alex Gu Javin Pombra Shahin Jabbari Steven Wu and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2022. The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner’s Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01602(2022). · DOI
  37. 10.1145/2678025.2701399 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.18653/v1/D19-1046 · DOI
  39. 10.1145/2939672.2939874 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1162/tacl_a_00440 · DOI
  41. 10.1145/3479552 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1145/3411764.3445562 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 4765–4774. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7062-a-unified-approach-to-interpreting-model-predictions.pdf
  44. Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 4765–4774.
  45. Robert C MacCallum and James T Austin. 2000. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual review of psychology 51 (2000).
  46. 10.1007/978-3-031-04083-2_7 · DOI
  47. Michael Neely Stefan F Schouten Maurits JR Bleeker and Ana Lucic. 2021. Order in the court: Explainable AI methods prone to disagreement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03287(2021). · arXiv
  48. 10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5284 · DOI
  49. Jeroen Ooge, Shotallo Kato, and Katrien Verbert. 2022. Explaining Recommendations in E-Learning: Effects on Adolescents’ Trust. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 93–105.
  50. Michael Pazzani Severine Soltani Robert Kaufman Samson Qian and Albert Hsiao. 2022. Expert-Informed User-Centric Explanations for Machine Learning. (2022). · DOI
  51. Amy Rechkemmer and Ming Yin. 2022. When Confidence Meets Accuracy: Exploring the Effects of Multiple Performance Indicators on Trust in Machine Learning Models. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
  52. General Data Protection Regulation. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46. Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) 59, 1-88 (2016), 294.
  53. 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1177/01466216980221008 · DOI
  56. William H Riker. 1988. Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. Waveland press.
  57. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Derek D Rucker, Kristopher J Preacher, Zakary L Tormala, and Richard E Petty. 2011. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and personality psychology compass 5, 6 (2011), 359–371.
  59. 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1145/3301275.3302308 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Karen Simonyan Andrea Vedaldi and Andrew Zisserman. 2013. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034(2013). · arXiv
  62. 10.1145/3313831.3376624 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Thilo Spinner, Udo Schlegel, Hanna Schäfer, and Mennatallah El-Assady. 2019. explAIner: A visual analytics framework for interactive and explainable machine learning. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1(2019), 1064–1074.
  64. Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3319–3328.
  65. 10.1145/3523227.3547427 · DOI
  66. 10.1145/3306618.3314293 · DOI
  67. Xinru Wang and Ming Yin. 2022. Effects of Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: Principles and Comparisons. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) (2022).
  68. Gesa Wiegand, Malin Eiband, Maximilian Haubelt, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2020. “I’d like an Explanation for That!” Exploring Reactions to Unexpected Autonomous Driving. In 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 1–11.
  69. 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.
  70. H Peyton Young. 1988. Condorcet’s theory of voting. American Political science review 82, 4 (1988), 1231–1244.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, X., & Yin, M.
Affiliations
Computer Science, Purdue University, United States
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-19
DOI
10.1145/3544548.3581366
Cited by
38
References
23
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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