The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring the Quality of Explanations: The System Causability Scale (SCS). Comparing Human and Machine Explanations
Open accessAbstract
Recent success in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) allow problem solving automatically without any human intervention. Autonomous approaches can be very convenient. However, in certain domains, e.g., in the medical domain, it is necessary to enable a domain expert to understand, why an algorithm came up with a certain result. Consequently, the field of Explainable AI (xAI) rapidly gained interest worldwide in various domains, particularly in medicine. Explainable AI studies transparency and traceability of opaque AI/ML and there are already a huge variety of methods. For example with layer-wise relevance propagation relevant parts of inputs to, and representations in, a neural network which caused a result, can be highlighted. This is a first important step to ensure that end users, e.g., medical professionals, assume responsibility for decision making with AI/ML and of interest to professionals and regulators. Interactive ML adds the component of human expertise to AI/ML processes by enabling them to re-enact and retrace AI/ML results, e.g. let them check it for plausibility. This requires new human-AI interfaces for explainable AI. In order to build effective and efficient interactive human-AI interfaces we have to deal with the question of how to evaluate the quality of explanations given by an explainable AI system. In this paper we introduce our System Causability Scale (SCS) to measure the quality of explanations. It is based on our notion of Causability (Holzinger et al., 2019) combined with concepts adapted from a widely accepted usability scale.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Holzinger et al. devised a notion of causability, which they later combined with a widely-accepted usability scale to form the System Causability Scale (SCS).
“Holzinger et al. [163] devised a notion of causability, which they later combined with a widely-accepted usability scale to form the System Causability Scale (SCS).”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [163]
Citations
Cites
The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale
Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12 · Cited by 1,278
Intelligible models for classification and regression
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., & Gehrke, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2339530.2339556 · Cited by 547
Ghafoorian, M., Karssemeijer, N., Heskes, T., van Uden, I. W. M., Sanchez, C. I., Litjens, G., de Leeuw, F.-E., van Ginneken, B., Marchiori, E., & Platel, B. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05300-5 · Cited by 236
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,495
The explainability paradox: Challenges for xAI in digital pathology
Evans, T., Retzlaff, C. O., Geißler, C., Kargl, M., Plass, M., Müller, H., Kiehl, T.-R., Zerbe, N., & Holzinger, A. (2022) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2022.03.009 · Cited by 135
Self-citationMarey, A., Serdysnki, K. C., Killeen, B. D., Unberath, M., & Umair, M. (2024) · BJR|Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1093/bjrai/ubae008 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Holzinger, A., Carrington, A., & Müller, H.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of Graz (AT)
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-198
- arXiv
- 1912.09024
- PMC
- PMC7271052
- OpenAlex
- W2995989664
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- explanation quality, explainable AI, human explanations, explanation evaluation
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