PreprintCited by 11Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Usability and User Interface DesignHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

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 access

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1912.09024

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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