Cited by 85Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Human-Centric Justification of Machine Learning Predictions

Open access
Biran, Or, McKeown, Kathleen·2017·Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Human decision makers in many domains can make use of predictions made by machine learning models in their decision making process, but the usability of these predictions is limited if the human is unable to justify his or her trust in the prediction. We propose a novel approach to producing justifications that is geared towards users without machine learning expertise, focusing on domain knowledge and on human reasoning, and utilizing natural language generation. Through a task-based experiment, we show that our approach significantly helps humans to correctly decide whether or not predictions are accurate, and significantly increases their satisfaction with the justification.

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 · 10.24963/ijcai.2017/202

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • A series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69] refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.

    “However, a series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69], refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.”
  • A series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69] refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.

    “However, a series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69], refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.”

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: 2

  1. Marek J Druzdzel. Qualitiative verbal ex- planations in bayesian belief networks. AISB QUAR- TERLY, pages 43-54, 1996.
  2. P. Symeonidis, A. Nanopoulos, and Y. Manolopoulos. Moviexplain: A recommender sys- tem with explanations. In RecSys, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biran, O., & McKeown, K.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2017-08
Pages
1461-1467
OpenAlex
W2741678970
Cited by
84
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
explainable machine learning, natural language generation, non-expert users, domain knowledge, human reasoning, decision-making, trust in AI

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