Cited by 60Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Feature-Based Explanations Don't Help People Detect Misclassifications of Online Toxicity

Open access
Carton, Samuel, Mei, Qiaozhu, Resnick, Paul·2020·Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Abstract

We present an experimental assessment of the impact of feature attribution-style explanations on human performance in predicting the consensus toxicity of social media posts with advice from an unreliable machine learning model. By doing so we add to a small but growing body of literature inspecting the utility of interpretable machine learning in terms of human outcomes. We also evaluate interpretable machine learning for the first time in the important domain of online toxicity, where fully-automated methods have faced criticism as being inadequate as a measure of toxic behavior.We find that, contrary to expectations, explanations have no significant impact on accuracy or agreement with model predictions, through they do change the distribution of subject error somewhat while reducing the cognitive burden of the task for subjects. Our results contribute to the recognition of an intriguing expectation gap in the field of interpretable machine learning between the general excitement the field has engendered and the ambiguous results of recent experimental work, including this study.

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/icwsm.v14i1.7282

Cites

52 of 52 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: 12

  1. [1]1. Abdul, A.; Vermeulen, J.; Wang, D.; Lim, B. Y.; and Kankanhalli, M. 2018. Trends and Trajectories for Ex- plainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems: An HCI Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-18. Montreal QC, Canada: ACM Press.
  2. [6]6. Cham: Springer.
  3. [8]8. Blackwell, L.; Dimond, J.; Schoenebeck, S.; and Lampe, C. 2018b. Classification and Its Consequences for Online Ha- rassment: Design Insights from HeartMob. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coopera- tive Work (CSCW 2018), 1-19.
  4. [11]11. Chandrasekharan, E.; Samory, M.; Jhaver, S.; Charvat, H.; Bruckman, A.; Lampe, C.; Eisenstein, J.; and Gilbert, E. 2018. The Internet's Hidden Rules: An Empirical Study of Reddit Norm Violations at Micro, Meso, and Macro Scales. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction - CSCW 2(CSCW):1-25.
  5. [17]17. Dove, G.; Halskov, K.; Forlizzi, J.; and Zimmerman, J. 2017. UX Design Innovation: Challenges for Working with Ma- chine Learning as a Design Material. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems -CHI '17, 278-288. Denver, Colorado, USA: ACM Press.
  6. [29]29. Jhaver, S.; Birman, I.; Gilbert, E.; and Bruckman, A. 2019. Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 26(5):31:1-31:35.
  7. [36]36. Lei, T.; Barzilay, R.; and Jaakkola, T. 2016. Rationaliz- ing Neural Predictions. In Proceedings of the 2016 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, 107-117.
  8. [39]39. Murdoch, W. J.; Singh, C.; Kumbier, K.; Abbasi-Asl, R.; and Yu, B. 2019. Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applications. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1901.04592. · arXiv
  9. [42]42. Olteanu, A.; Talamadupula, K.; and Varshney, K. R. 2017. The Limits of Abstract Evaluation Metrics: The Case of Hate Speech Detection. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference -WebSci '17, 405-406.
  10. [43]43. Troy, New York, USA: ACM Press.
  11. [53]53. Wang, C. 2018. Interpreting Neural Network Hate Speech Classiers. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online, 7.
  12. [56]56. Wiegreffe, S., and Pinter, Y. 2019. Attention is not not Ex- planation. arXiv preprint. arXiv: 1908.04626. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carton, S., Mei, Q., & Resnick, P.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
14
Pages
95-106
ISSN
  • 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0770
OpenAlex
W3037843601
Cited by
58
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7
FWCI
3.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1633370, 1620319, 1717688)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
feature attribution, explainable AI, online toxicity, social media posts, model reliability, cognitive load, model interpretability, human evaluation of explanations

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