Cited by 1,084Machine Learning and AlgorithmsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningRecommender Systems and Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning

Open access
Amershi, Saleema, Cakmak, Maya, Knox, W. Bradley, Kulesza, Todd·2014·AI Magazine

Abstract

Systems that can learn interactively from their end‐users are quickly becoming widespread. Until recently, this progress has been fueled mostly by advances in machine learning; however, more and more researchers are realizing the importance of studying users of these systems. In this article we promote this approach and demonstrate how it can result in better user experiences and more effective learning systems. We present a number of case studies that demonstrate how interactivity results in a tight coupling between the system and the user, exemplify ways in which some existing systems fail to account for the user, and explore new ways for learning systems to interact with their users. After giving a glimpse of the progress that has been made thus far, we discuss some of the challenges we face in moving the field forward.

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 · 10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513

Cites

53 of 53 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 55 references

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Amershi S., 2009, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2009 (UIST 2009), 47
  2. Kamar E., 2012, Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi‐Agent Systems (AAMAS 2012)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,004

Metadata

Authors
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
Venue
AI Magazine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
105-120
ISSN
  • 0738-4602 (ISSN-L)
  • 2371-9621
OpenAlex
W1501005121
Cited by
1,084
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 139 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 172 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2
FWCI
23.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
AI Magazine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
interactive machine learning, human-in-the-loop learning, user modeling, user experience, human-computer interaction, learning systems

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