CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 120Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences

Open access
Liao, Q. Vera, Varshney, Kush R.·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2110.10790arXiv 2110.10790
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has produced a vast collection of algorithms, providing a useful toolbox for researchers and practitioners to build XAI applications. With the rich application opportunities, explainability is believed to have moved beyond a demand by data scientists or researchers to comprehend the models they develop, to an essential requirement for people to trust and adopt AI deployed in numerous domains. However, explainability is an inherently human-centric property and the field is starting to embrace human-centered approaches. Human-computer interaction (HCI) research and user experience (UX) design in this area are becoming increasingly important. In this chapter, we begin with a high-level overview of the technical landscape of XAI algorithms, then selectively survey our own and other recent HCI works that take human-centered approaches to design, evaluate, and provide conceptual and methodological tools for XAI. We ask the question "what are human-centered approaches doing for XAI" and highlight three roles that they play in shaping XAI technologies by helping navigate, assess and expand the XAI toolbox: to drive technical choices by users' explainability needs, to uncover pitfalls of existing XAI methods and inform new methods, and to provide conceptual frameworks for human-compatible XAI.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2110.10790

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Users' explainability needs emerge in a usage context, guided by their goals and shaped by their backgrounds, expectations, and socio-organizational and cultural contexts.

    “users' explainability needs emerge in a usage context, guided by their goals and shaped by their backgrounds, expectations, as well as socio, organizational and cultural contexts [20,48,52].”

    From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 3 (p. 5) says users’ explainability needs vary with their goals, backgrounds, and usage contexts. Section 4 (p. 12) also says those needs should be situated in socio-organizational contexts. Our copy does not clearly say that users’ expectations or cultural contexts shape those needs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Participants' questions reflected their desire for an actionable or utility-oriented understanding to support their end goal of optimizing code generation and programming productivity.

    “Participants' questions reflected their desire for an actionable or utility-oriented understanding to support their end goal of optimizing code generation and programming productivity [18,50,52], such as asking the Input, Output, How and How-to XAI questions (described in Section 4) to facilitate strategies to get better outputs from the AI.”

    From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 4 (p. 8) says users seek actionable understanding that serves their objectives, and Section 3 (p. 6) describes eliciting users’ XAI questions. The paper does not report the citing study’s participants or establish that their questions aimed to optimize code generation and programming productivity. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous studies have attributed the cause of overreliance on AI to a lack of cognitive engagement [10,32,55].

    “Previous studies have attributed the cause of overreliance on AI to a lack of cognitive engagement [10,32,55].”

    From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [55]

    In “Pitfalls of XAI” (p. 10), the paper links less analytical engagement to cognitive biases and says it may produce unwarranted trust in AI explanations. It does not establish lack of cognitive engagement as the cause of overreliance on AI; it presents that connection as a possibility. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 76

  1. [7][7] David Alvarez-Melis and Tommi S Jaakkola. 2018. Towards robust interpretability with self-explaining neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07538 (2018). - · arXiv
  2. [8][8] David Alvarez-Melis, Harmanpreet Kaur, Hal Daumé III, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2021. From human explanation to model interpretability: A framework based on weight of evidence. In AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP) . -
  3. [9][9] Charles Antaki and Ivan Leudar. 1992. Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model. European Journal of Social Psychology 22, 2 (1992), 181-194. -
  4. [10][10] Daniel W Apley and Jingyu Zhu. 2020. Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 82, 4 (2020), 1059-1086. -
  5. [12][12] Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-López, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, et al. 2020. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion 58 (2020), 82-115. -
  6. [13][13] Vijay Arya, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Pin-Yu Chen, Amit Dhurandhar, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Q. Vera Liao, Ronny Luss, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Sami Mourad, Pablo Pedemonte, Ramya Raghavendra, John Richards, Prasanna Sattigeri, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Moninder Singh, Kush R. Varshney, Dennis Wei, and Yunfeng Zhang. 2020. AI Explainability 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Understanding Data and Machine Learning Models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 130 (2020), 1-6. -
  7. [14][14] Sebastian Bach, Alexander Binder, Grégoire Montavon, Frederick Klauschen, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. 2015. On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation. PloS one 10, 7 (2015), e0130140. -
  8. [16][16] Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2001. Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 396-403. -
  9. [17][17] Zana Buçinca, Phoebe Lin, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Elena L Glassman. 2020. Proxy tasks and subjective measures can be misleading in evaluating explainable AI systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 454-464. -
  10. [19][19] Carrie J Cai, Samantha Winter, David Steiner, Lauren Wilcox, and Michael Terry. 2019. Hello AI: Uncovering the Onboarding Needs of Medical Practitioners for Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 104. -
  11. [21][21] Diogo V Carvalho, Eduardo M Pereira, and Jaime S Cardoso. 2019. Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics 8, 8 (2019), 832. -
  12. [22][22] Alison Cawsey. 1992. Explanation and interaction: the computer generation of explanatory dialogues . MIT press. -
  13. [25][25] Mark Craven and Jude Shavlik. 1995. Extracting tree-structured representations of trained networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 8 (1995), 24-30. -
  14. [26][26] Brenda Dervin. 1998. Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of knowledge management (1998). -
  15. [27][27] Amit Dhurandhar, Pin-Yu Chen, Ronny Luss, Chun-Chen Tu, Paishun Ting, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, and Payel Das. 2018. Explanations based on the missing: Towards contrastive explanations with pertinent negatives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07623 (2018). - · arXiv
  16. [28][28] Amit Dhurandhar, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Ronny Luss, and Peder A Olsen. 2018. Improving Simple Models with Confidence Profiles. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (2018). -
  17. [29][29] Jonathan Dodge, Q Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel KE Bellamy, and Casey Dugan. 2019. Explaining models: an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 275-285. -
  18. [32][32] Upol Ehsan, Samir Passi, Q Vera Liao, Larry Chan, I Lee, Michael Muller, Mark O Riedl, et al. 2021. The Who in Explainable AI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13509 (2021). - · arXiv
  19. [33][33] Upol Ehsan and Mark O Riedl. 2020. Human-centered explainable ai: Towards a reflective sociotechnical approach. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . Springer, 449-466. -
  20. [34][34] Upol Ehsan, Pradyumna Tambwekar, Larry Chan, Brent Harrison, and Mark O Riedl. 2019. Automated rationale generation: a technique for explainable AI and its effects on human perceptions. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 263-274. -
  21. [35][35] Upol Ehsan, Philipp Wintersberger, Q Vera Liao, Martina Mara, Marc Streit, Sandra Wachter, Andreas Riener, and Mark O Riedl. 2021. Operationalizing Human-Centered Perspectives in Explainable AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-6. -
  22. [37][37] Malin Eiband, Hanna Schneider, Mark Bilandzic, Julian Fazekas-Con, Mareike Haug, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2018. Bringing transparency design into practice. In 23rd international conference on intelligent user interfaces . 211-223. -
  23. [38][38] Mingming Fan, Xianyou Yang, TszTung Yu, Q Vera Liao, and Jian Zhao. 2022. Human-AI Collaboration for UX Evaluation: Effects of Explanation and Synchronization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1-32. -
  24. [40][40] Bhavya Ghai, Q Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel Bellamy, and Klaus Mueller. 2021. Explainable active learning (xal) toward ai explanations as interfaces for machine teachers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1-28. -
  25. [41][41] Marzyeh Ghassemi, Luke Oakden-Rayner, and Andrew L Beam. 2021. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. The Lancet Digital Health 3, 11 (2021), e745-e750. -
  26. [42][42] Soumya Ghosh, Q Vera Liao, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Jiri Navratil, Prasanna Sattigeri, Kush R Varshney, and Yunfeng Zhang. 2021. Uncertainty Quantification 360: A Holistic Toolkit for Quantifying and Communicating the Uncertainty of AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01410 (2021). - · arXiv
  27. [43][43] Erving Goffman et al. 1978. The presentation of self in everyday life . Vol. 21. Harmondsworth London. -
  28. [44][44] Alex Goldstein, Adam Kapelner, Justin Bleich, and Emil Pitkin. 2015. Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation. journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 24, 1 (2015), 44-65. -
  29. [46][46] Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2019. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 51, 5 (2019), 93. -
  30. [47][47] Karthik S Gurumoorthy, Amit Dhurandhar, Guillermo Cecchi, and Charu Aggarwal. 2019. Efficient data representation by selecting prototypes with importance weights. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 260-269. -
  31. [48][48] Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 5540-5552. -
  32. [50][50] Denis J Hilton. 1990. Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin 107, 1 (1990), 65. -
  33. [51][51] Michael Hind. 2019. Explaining explainable AI. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 25, 3 (2019), 16-19. -
  34. [52][52] Michael Hind, Dennis Wei, Murray Campbell, Noel CF Codella, Amit Dhurandhar, Aleksandra Mojsilović, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, and Kush R Varshney. 2019. TED: Teaching AI to explain its decisions. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 123-129. -
  35. [53][53] Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A design probe to understand how data scientists understand machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-13. -
  36. [56][56] Harmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2020. Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-14. -
  37. [57][57] Been Kim, Rajiv Khanna, and Oluwasanmi O Koyejo. 2016. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In Proceedings of NIPS . -
  38. [58][58] Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, et al. 2018. Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav). In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2668-2677. -
  39. [59][59] Josua Krause, Adam Perer, and Kenney Ng. 2016. Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 5686-5697. -
  40. [60][60] Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stephen H Bach, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 1675-1684. -
  41. [61][61] Himabindu Lakkaraju, Ece Kamar, Rich Caruana, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Interpretable & explorable approximations of black box models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01154 (2017). - · arXiv
  42. [62][62] Mark R Leary and Robin M Kowalski. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin 107, 1 (1990), 34. -
  43. [63][63] Jing Lei, Max G'Sell, Alessandro Rinaldo, Ryan J Tibshirani, and Larry Wasserman. 2018. Distribution-free predictive inference for regression. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113, 523 (2018), 1094-1111. -
  44. [64][64] Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Understanding neural networks through representation erasure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08220 (2016). - · arXiv
  45. [65][65] QVera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-15. -
  46. [67][67] Brian Y Lim and Anind K Dey. 2009. Assessing demand for intelligibility in context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing . 195-204. -
  47. [69][69] Arnaud Van Looveren and Janis Klaise. 2021. Interpretable counterfactual explanations guided by prototypes. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 650-665. -
  48. [70][70] Ana Lucic, Hinda Haned, and Maarten de Rijke. 2020. Why does my model fail? contrastive local explanations for retail forecasting. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 90-98. -
  49. [72][72] Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on neural information processing systems . 4768-4777. -
  50. [73][73] Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg, and Frank Vetere. 2019. A grounded interaction protocol for explainable artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02409 (2019). - · arXiv
  51. [74][74] Bertram F Malle. 2006. How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction . Mit Press. -
  52. [76][76] Tim Miller, Piers Howe, and Liz Sonenberg. 2017. Explainable AI: Beware of inmates running the asylum or: How I learnt to stop worrying and love the social and behavioural sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00547 (2017). - · arXiv
  53. [77][77] Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 220-229. -
  54. [78][78] Ramaravind Kommiya Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. 2019. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07697 (2019). - · arXiv
  55. [79][79] Shweta Narkar, Yunfeng Zhang, Q Vera Liao, Dakuo Wang, and Justin D Weisz. 2021. Model LineUpper: Supporting Interactive Model Comparison at Multiple Levels for AutoML. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 170-174. -
  56. [80][80] Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition . Basic books. -
  57. [82][82] Andrés Páez. 2019. The pragmatic turn in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Minds and Machines 29, 3 (2019), 441-459. -
  58. [83][83] Nicolas Papernot and Patrick McDaniel. 2018. Deep k-nearest neighbors: Towards confident, interpretable and robust deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04765 (2018). - · arXiv
  59. [86][86] Alun Preece, Dan Harborne, Dave Braines, Richard Tomsett, and Supriyo Chakraborty. 2018. Stakeholders in explainable AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00184 (2018). - · arXiv
  60. [87][87] Isha Puri, Amit Dhurandhar, Tejaswini Pedapati, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Dennis Wei, and Kush R. Varshney. 2021. CoFrNets: Interpretable neural architecture inspired by continued fractions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -
  61. [88][88] Charvi Rastogi, Yunfeng Zhang, Dennis Wei, Kush R. Varshney, Amit Dhurandhar, and Richard Tomsett. 2022. Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-Assisted Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . -
  62. [89][89] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of KDD . -
  63. [91][91] Soo Young Rieh and David R Danielson. 2007. Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual review of information science and technology 41, 1 (2007), 307-364. -
  64. [92][92] Justus Robertson, Athanasios Vasileios Kokkinakis, Jonathan Hook, Ben Kirman, Florian Block, Marian F Ursu, Sagarika Patra, Simon Demediuk, Anders Drachen, and Oluseyi Olarewaju. 2021. Wait, But Why?: Assessing Behavior Explanation Strategies for Real-Time Strategy Games. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 32-42. -
  65. [93][93] Cynthia Rudin. 2019. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 5 (2019), 206-215. -
  66. [94][94] Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 618-626. -
  67. [96][96] Harini Suresh, Steven R Gomez, Kevin K Nam, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2021. Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-16. -
  68. [97][97] Maxwell Szymanski, Martijn Millecamp, and Katrien Verbert. 2021. Visual, textual or hybrid: the effect of user expertise on different explanations. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 109-119. -
  69. [98][98] Sarah Tan, Rich Caruana, Giles Hooker, Paul Koch, and Albert Gordo. 2018. Learning global additive explanations for neural nets using model distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08640 (2018). - · arXiv
  70. [101][101] Douglas Walton. 2004. A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7, 1 (2004), 71-89. -
  71. [102][102] Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y Lim. 2019. Designing Theory-Driven User-Centric Explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 601. -
  72. [104][104] Dennis Wei, Sanjeeb Dash, Tian Gao, and Oktay Gunluk. 2019. Generalized linear rule models. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 6687-6696. -
  73. [105][105] Pengfei Wei, Zhenzhou Lu, and Jingwen Song. 2015. Variable importance analysis: a comprehensive review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 142 (2015), 399-432. -
  74. [106][106] Tom D Wilson. 1981. On user studies and information needs. Journal of documentation (1981). -
  75. [108][108] Chih-Kuan Yeh, Joon Kim, Ian En-Hsu Yen, and Pradeep K Ravikumar. 2018. Representer point selection for explaining deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018). -
  76. [109][109] Yunfeng Zhang, Q Vera Liao, and Rachel KE Bellamy. 2020. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 295-305.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liao, Q. V., & Varshney, K. R.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2110.10790
arXiv
2110.10790
OpenAlex
W3205523989
Cited by
120
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
explainable AI, human-centered design, user experience design, human-computer interaction, trust in AI, XAI 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