CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AISafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why is plausibility surprisingly problematic as an XAI criterion?

Open access
Jin, Weina, Li, Xiaoxiao, Hamarneh, Ghassan·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2303.17707arXiv 2303.17707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is motivated by the problem of making AI predictions understandable, transparent, and responsible, as AI becomes increasingly impactful in society and high-stakes domains. The evaluation and optimization criteria of XAI are gatekeepers for XAI algorithms to achieve their expected goals and should withstand rigorous inspection. To improve the scientific rigor of XAI, we conduct a critical examination of a common XAI criterion: plausibility. Plausibility assesses how convincing the AI explanation is to humans, and is usually quantified by metrics of feature localization or feature correlation. Our examination shows that plausibility is invalid to measure explainability, and human explanations are not the ground truth for XAI, because doing so ignores the necessary assumptions underpinning an explanation. Our examination further reveals the consequences of using plausibility as an XAI criterion, including increasing misleading explanations that manipulate users, deteriorating users' trust in the AI system, undermining human autonomy, being unable to achieve complementary human-AI task performance, and abandoning other possible approaches of enhancing understandability. Due to the invalidity of measurements and the unethical issues, this position paper argues that the community should stop using plausibility as a criterion for the evaluation and optimization of XAI algorithms. We also delineate new research approaches to improve XAI in trustworthiness, understandability, and utility to users, including complementary human-AI task performance.

Overview

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.2303.17707

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • As task complexity increases, the verifiability and plausibility of AI advice tend to decrease.

    “Moreover, as task complexity increases, the verifability [40] and plausibility [57, 60] of AI advice tend to decrease.”

    From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

    The cited paper’s G.4 section says people can more readily recognize misleading explanations as implausible when tasks are easy or unambiguous. That does not establish that the plausibility of AI advice decreases as task complexity increases. A search for task complexity and plausibility found no passage stating that trend; the separately cited verifiability claim is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Moloud Abdar, Farhad Pourpanah, Sadiq Hussain, Dana Rezazadegan, Li Liu, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, Paul Fieguth, Xiaochun Cao, Abbas Khosravi, U. Rajendra Acharya, Vladimir Makarenkov, and Saeid Na- havandi. A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Information Fusion, 76:243-297, 2021.
  2. Julius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Harold Abelson, and Been Kim. Post hoc explanations may be ineffective for detecting unknown spurious correlation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  3. Ulrich Aïvodji, Hiromi Arai, Olivier Fortineau, Sébastien Gambs, Satoshi Hara, and Alain Tapp. Fairwash- ing: the risk of rationalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 161-170. PMLR, 2019.
  4. Patrick Altmeyer, Andrew M. Demetriou, Antony Bartlett, and Cynthia C. S. Liem. Position: stop making unscientific agi performance claims. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
  5. Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3):973-989, 2018.
  6. Gagan Bansal, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Walter S. Lasecki, Daniel S. Weld, and Eric Horvitz. Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-ai team performance. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 7(1):2-11, Oct. 2019.
  7. Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.
  8. Alina Jade Barnett, Fides Regina Schwartz, Chaofan Tao, Chaofan Chen, Yinhao Ren, Joseph Y. Lo, and Cynthia Rudin. A case-based interpretable deep learning model for classification of mass lesions in digital mammography. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(12):1061-1070, December 2021.
  9. Przemyslaw Biecek and Wojciech Samek. Position: Explain to question not to justify. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3996-4006. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024.
  10. Leo Breiman. Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures. Statistical Science, 16(3):199-215, 2001.
  11. Ryan Burnell, Wout Schellaert, John Burden, Tomer D. Ullman, Fernando Martinez-Plumed, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Danaja Rutar, Lucy G. Cheke, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Melanie Mitchell, Douwe Kiela, Murray Shanahan, Ellen M. Voorhees, Anthony G. Cohn, Joel Z. Leibo, and Jose Hernandez-Orallo. Rethink reporting of evaluation results in ai. Science, 380(6641):136-138, April 2023.
  12. Adrian Bussone, Simone Stumpf, and Dympna O'Sullivan. The role of explanations on trust and reliance in clinical decision support systems. In 2015 International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, pages 160-169, 2015.
  13. Zoya Bylinskii, Tilke Judd, Aude Oliva, Antonio Torralba, and Frédo Durand. What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models? IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(3):740-757, 2019.
  14. Samuel Carton, Qiaozhu Mei, and Paul Resnick. Feature-based explanations don't help people detect misclassifications of online toxicity. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14(1):95-106, May 2020.
  15. Chacha Chen, Shi Feng, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Machine explanations and human understanding. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '23, page 1, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.
  16. Paul Cilliers. Critical complexity: collected essays. Categories (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) ; Volume 6. De Gruyter, 2016.
  17. Nicolas Claidière, Emmanuel Trouche, and Hugo Mercier. Argumentation and the diffusion of counter- intuitive beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7):1052-1066, July 2017.
  18. Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Byron C. Wallace. ERASER: A benchmark to evaluate rationalized NLP models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4443-4458, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Kate Donahue, Alexandra Chouldechova, and Krishnaram Kenthapadi. Human-algorithm collaboration: Achieving complementarity and avoiding unfairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '22, page 1639-1656, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery.
  20. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017. · arXiv
  21. Finale Doshi-Velez, Mason Kortz, Ryan Budish, Christopher Bavitz, Samuel J. Gershman, David O'Brien, Stuart Shieber, Jim Waldo, David Weinberger, and Alexandra Wood. Accountability of AI under the law: The role of explanation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017.
  22. Felix Elwert. Graphical causal models. In Stephen L. Morgan, editor, Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, pages 245-273. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2013.
  23. Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, Robert Madelin, Ugo Pagallo, Francesca Rossi, Burkhard Schafer, Peggy Valcke, and Effy Vayena. Ai4people-an ethical framework for a good ai society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4):689-707, November 2018.
  24. Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, page 2122-2131, January 2019.
  25. Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv., 51(5), aug 2018.
  26. Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning -Volume 70, ICML'17, page 1321-1330. JMLR.org, 2017.
  27. Juergen Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston, volume 1 edition edition, March 1985.
  28. Anna Hedström, Leander Weber, Daniel Krakowczyk, Dilyara Bareeva, Franz Motzkus, Wojciech Samek, Sebastian Lapuschkin, and Marina M.-C. Höhne. Quantus: An explainable ai toolkit for responsible evaluation of neural network explanations and beyond. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(34):1- 11, 2023.
  29. Patrick Hemmer, Max Schemmer, Michael Vössing, and Niklas Kühl. Human-ai complementarity in hybrid intelligence systems: A structured literature review. PACIS, page 78, 2021.
  30. Pavel Ircing and Jan Švec. Will xai provide real explanation or just a plausible rationalization? In Huimin Lu, Michael Blumenstein, Sung-Bae Cho, Cheng-Lin Liu, Yasushi Yagi, and Tohru Kamiya, editors, Pattern Recognition, pages 358-368, Cham, 2023. Springer Nature Switzerland.
  31. Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon. Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall, 14th edition, 2011.
  32. Abigail Z. Jacobs and Hanna Wallach. Measurement and fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, page 375-385, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.
  33. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. Towards faithfully interpretable NLP systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4198-4205, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  34. Weina Jin, Jianyu Fan, Diane Gromala, Philippe Pasquier, and Ghassan Hamarneh. EUCA: the end-user- centered explainable AI framework. arXiv:2102.02437, 2021. · arXiv
  35. Florian Karl, Malte Kemeter, Gabriel Dax, and Paulina Sierak. Position: Embracing negative results in machine learning. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 23256-23265. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024.
  36. Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, et al. In- terpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav). In International conference on machine learning, pages 2668-2677. PMLR, 2018.
  37. Himabindu Lakkaraju and Osbert Bastani. "how do i fool you?": Manipulating user trust via misleading black box explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '20, page 79-85, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery.
  38. John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1):50-80, 2004. PMID: 15151155.
  39. Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn and Francesca Toni. Human-grounded evaluations of explanation methods for text classification. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5195-5205, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  40. Roy J Lewicki and Barbara Benedict Bunker. Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch., The Jossey-Bass management series and The Jossey-Bass conflict resolution series., pages 133-173. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, US, 1995.
  41. Han Liu, Vivian Lai, and Chenhao Tan. Understanding the effect of out-of-distribution examples and interactive explanations on human-ai decision making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5(CSCW2), oct 2021.
  42. Brian Lubars and Chenhao Tan. Ask not what ai can do, but what ai should do: Towards a framework of task delegability. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32.
  43. Bertram F Malle. How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. MIT press, 2006.
  44. Aniek F. Markus, Jan A. Kors, and Peter R. Rijnbeek. The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: A comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 113:103655, 2021.
  45. Hugo Mercier. Not born yesterday: the science of who we trust and what we believe. Princeton University Press, 2020.
  46. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Why do humans reason? arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2):57-74, March 2011.
  47. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press, 2019.
  48. Sina Mohseni, Jeremy E Block, and Eric Ragan. Quantitative evaluation of machine learning explanations: A human-grounded benchmark. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI '21, page 22-31, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.
  49. Hussein Mozannar, Hunter Lang, Dennis Wei, Prasanna Sattigeri, Subhro Das, and David Sontag. Who should predict? exact algorithms for learning to defer to humans. In Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2023.
  50. Ashley I Naimi and Brian W Whitcomb. Defining and Identifying Average Treatment Effects. American Journal of Epidemiology, 192(5):685-687, 01 2023.
  51. Meike Nauta, Jan Trienes, Shreyasi Pathak, Elisa Nguyen, Michelle Peters, Yasmin Schmitt, Jörg Schlöt- terer, Maurice van Keulen, and Christin Seifert. From anecdotal evidence to quantitative evaluation methods: A systematic review on evaluating explainable ai. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(13s), jul 2023.
  52. Giang Nguyen, Daeyoung Kim, and Anh Nguyen. The effectiveness of feature attribution methods and its correlation with automatic evaluation scores. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 26422-26436.
  53. Mahsan Nourani, Chiradeep Roy, Tahrima Rahman, Eric D Ragan, Nicholas Ruozzi, and Vibhav Gogate. Don't explain without verifying veracity: an evaluation of explainable ai with video activity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02335, 2020. · arXiv
  54. Judea Pearl. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82(4):669-688, 12 1995.
  55. Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Michael Baumgartner, Matthias Eisenmann, Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel, A. Emre Kavur, Tim Rädsch, Carole H. Sudre, Laura Acion, Michela Antonelli, Tal Arbel, Spyridon Bakas, Arriel Benis, Florian Buettner, M. Jorge Cardoso, Veronika Cheplygina, Jianxu Chen, Evangelia Christodoulou, Beth A. Cimini, Keyvan Farahani, Luciana Ferrer, Adrian Galdran, Bram van Ginneken, Ben Glocker, Patrick Godau, Daniel A. Hashimoto, Michael M. Hoffman, Merel Huisman, Fabian Isensee, Pierre Jannin, Charles E. Kahn, Dagmar Kainmueller, Bernhard Kainz, Alexandros Karargyris, Jens Kleesiek, Florian Kofler, Thijs Kooi, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Michal Kozubek, Anna Kreshuk, Tahsin Kurc, Bennett A. Landman, Geert Litjens, Amin Madani, Klaus Maier-Hein, Anne L. Martel, Erik Meijering, Bjoern Menze, Karel G. M. Moons, Henning Müller, Brennan Nichyporuk, Felix Nickel, Jens Petersen, Susanne M. Rafelski, Nasir Rajpoot, Mauricio Reyes, Michael A. Riegler, Nicola Rieke, Julio Saez-Rodriguez, Clara I. Sánchez, Shravya Shetty, Ronald M. Summers, Abdel A. Taha, Aleksei Tiulpin, Sotirios A. Tsaftaris, Ben Van Calster, Gaël Varoquaux, Ziv R. Yaniv, Paul F. Jäger, and Lena Maier- Hein. Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation. Nature Methods, 21(2):182-194, February 2024.
  56. Anaïs Rességuier and Rowena Rodrigues. AI ethics should not remain toothless! A call to bring back the teeth of ethics. Big Data & Society, 7(2):2053951720942541, 2020.
  57. Gernot Rieder, Judith Simon, and Pak-Hang Wong. Mapping the Stony Road toward Trustworthy AI: Expectations, Problems, Conundrums. In Machines We Trust: Perspectives on Dependable AI. The MIT Press, 08 2021.
  58. Marko Robnik-Šikonja and Marko Bohanec. Perturbation-Based Explanations of Prediction Models, pages 159-175. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018.
  59. Andrew Slavin Ross, Michael C. Hughes, and Finale Doshi-Velez. Right for the right reasons: Training differentiable models by constraining their explanations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 2662-2670, 2017.
  60. Cynthia Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5):206-215, May 2019.
  61. Cynthia Rudin, Chudi Zhong, Lesia Semenova, Margo Seltzer, Ronald Parr, Jiachang Liu, Srikar Katta, Jon Donnelly, Harry Chen, and Zachery Boner. Position: Amazing things come from having many good models. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 42783-42795. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024.
  62. Adriel Saporta, Xiaotong Gui, Ashwin Agrawal, Anuj Pareek, Steven Q. H. Truong, Chanh D. T. Nguyen, Van-Doan Ngo, Jayne Seekins, Francis G. Blankenberg, Andrew Y. Ng, Matthew P. Lungren, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Benchmarking saliency methods for chest x-ray interpretation. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(10):867-878, October 2022.
  63. Eldar Shafir, Itamar Simonson, and Amos Tversky. Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1):11-36, 1993.
  64. Amitojdeep Singh, Sourya Sengupta, Jothi Balaji J., Abdul Rasheed Mohammed, Ibrahim Faruq, Varad- harajan Jayakumar, John Zelek, and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan. What is the optimal attribution method for explainable ophthalmic disease classification? In Ophthalmic Medical Image Analysis: 7th Interna- tional Workshop, OMIA 2020, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2020, Lima, Peru, October 8, 2020, Proceedings, page 21-31, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020. Springer-Verlag.
  65. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd edition, 1995.
  66. Susu Sun, Lisa M. Koch, and Christian F. Baumgartner. Right for the wrong reason: Can interpretable ml techniques detect spurious correlations? In Hayit Greenspan, Anant Madabhushi, Parvin Mousavi, Septimiu Salcudean, James Duncan, Tanveer Syeda-Mahmood, and Russell Taylor, editors, Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention -MICCAI 2023, pages 425-434, Cham, 2023. Springer Nature Switzerland.
  67. Peter W G Tennant, Eleanor J Murray, Kellyn F Arnold, Laurie Berrie, Matthew P Fox, Sarah C Gadd, Wendy J Harrison, Claire Keeble, Lynsie R Ranker, Johannes Textor, Georgia D Tomova, Mark S Gilthorpe, and George T H Ellison. Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to identify confounders in applied health research: review and recommendations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 50(2):620-632, 12 2020.
  68. Stefan Thurner, Rudolf Hanel, and Peter Klimekl. Introduction to Complex Systems. In Introduction to the Theory of Complex Systems. Oxford University Press, 09 2018.
  69. Andrea Tocchetti and Marco Brambilla. The role of human knowledge in explainable ai. Data, 7(7), 2022.
  70. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157):1124-1131, 1974.
  71. Oleksandra Vereschak, Gilles Bailly, and Baptiste Caramiaux. How to evaluate trust in ai-assisted decision making? a survey of empirical methodologies. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5(CSCW2), oct 2021.
  72. Eric Vittinghoff, David V. Glidden, Stephen C. Shiboski, and Charles E. McCulloch. Strengthening Causal Inference, pages 331-394. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2012.
  73. Ben Wagner. Ethics as an escape from regulation. from "ethics-washing" to ethics-shopping? In BEING PROFILED, page 84-89. Amsterdam University Press, December 2019.
  74. Daniel S. Weld and Gagan Bansal. The challenge of crafting intelligible intelligence. Commun. ACM, 62(6):70-79, may 2019.
  75. Yiqi Yan, Jeremy Kawahara, and Ghassan Hamarneh. Melanoma recognition via visual attention. In Albert C. S. Chung, James C. Gee, Paul A. Yushkevich, and Siqi Bao, editors, Information Processing in Medical Imaging, pages 793-804, Cham, 2019. Springer International Publishing.
  76. Zhuofan Ying, Peter Hase, and Mohit Bansal. Visfis: Visual feature importance supervision with right- for-the-right-reason objectives. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 17057-17072.
  77. Jeffrey C. Zemla, Steven Sloman, Christos Bechlivanidis, and David A. Lagnado. Evaluating everyday explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5):1488-1500, March 2017.
  78. Jianming Zhang, Sarah Adel Bargal, Zhe Lin, Jonathan Brandt, Xiaohui Shen, and Stan Sclaroff. Top-down neural attention by excitation backprop. International Journal of Computer Vision, 126(10):1084-1102, December 2017.
  79. Yunfeng Zhang, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel K. E. Bellamy. Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making. FAT* 2020 -Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 295-305, jan 2020.
  80. Zijian Zhang, Jaspreet Singh, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Avishek Anand. Dissonance between human and machine understanding. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3(CSCW), nov 2019.
  81. Elise Li Zheng, Weina Jin, Ghassan Hamarneh, and Sandra Soo-Jin Lee. From human-in-the-loop to human-in-power. The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(9):84-86, 2024. PMID: 39226019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jin, W., Li, X., & Hamarneh, G.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2303.17707
arXiv
2303.17707
OpenAlex
W4362508267
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
explainable AI, plausibility, explainability metrics, feature localization, feature correlation, user trust, human autonomy, AI ethics

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