Cited by 265Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Text and Document Classification TechnologiesTopic Modeling

Explaining Data-Driven Document Classifications1

Martens, David, Provost, Foster·2014·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Many document classification applications require human understanding of the reasons for data-driven classification decisions by managers, client-facing employees, and the technical team. Predictive models treat documents as data to be classified, and document data are characterized by very high dimensionality, often with tens of thousands to millions of variables (words). Unfortunately, due to the high dimensionality, understanding the decisions made by document classifiers is very difficult. This paper begins by extending the most relevant prior theoretical model of explanations for intelligent systems to account for some missing elements. The main theoretical contribution is the definition of a new sort of explanation as a minimal set of words (terms, generally), such that removing all words within this set from the document changes the predicted class from the class of interest. We present an algorithm to find such explanations, as well as a framework to assess such an algorithm’s performance. We demonstrate the value of the new approach with a case study from a real-world document classification task: classifying web pages as containing objectionable content, with the goal of allowing advertisers to choose not to have their ads appear on those pages. A second empirical demonstration on news-story topic classification shows the explanations to be concise and document-specific, and to be capable of providing understanding of the exact reasons for the classification decisions, of the workings of the classification models, and of the business application itself. We also illustrate how explaining the classifications of documents can help to improve data quality and model performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.04

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martens, D., & Provost, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2014-03-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
73-100
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W198744195
Cited by
264
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
explainable AI, document classification, high-dimensional text data, web page classification, model interpretability, data quality improvement

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