The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Categorizing Sources of Information for Explanations in Conversational AI Systems for Older Adults Aging in Place
Open accessAbstract
As the permeability of AI systems in interpersonal domains like the home expands, their technical capabilities of generating explanations are required to be aligned with user expectations for transparency and reasoning. This paper presents insights from our ongoing work in understanding the effectiveness of explanations in Conversational AI systems for older adults aging in place and their family caregivers. We argue that in collaborative and multi-user environments like the home, AI systems will make recommendations based on a host of information sources to generate explanations. These sources may be more or less salient based on user mental models of the system and the specific task. We highlight the need for cross technological collaboration between AI systems and other available sources of information in the home to generate multiple explanations for a single user query. Through example scenarios in a caregiving home setting, this paper provides an initial framework for categorizing these sources and informing a potential design space for AI explanations surrounding everyday tasks in the home.
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?
Conversational history and real-time environmental data are two key information sources that can be leveraged in smart home environments to generate explanations.
“Mathur et al. [39, 40] identify conversational history and real-time environmental data as two key information sources that can be leveraged in smart home environments to generate explanations”
From "Who wants to be nagged by AI?": Investigating the Effects of Agreeableness on Older Adults' Perception of LLM-Based Voice Assistants' Explanations (2026) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mathur, N., Rahman, H., & Desai, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798685 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMathur, N., Zubatiy, T., Rozga, A., & Mynatt, E. D. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3856982 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mathur, N., Zubatiy, T., & Mynatt, E.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Northeastern University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.05111
- OpenAlex
- W4399511689
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Keywords
- explainable AI, conversational AI, older adults, aging in place, family caregivers, information sources, multiple explanations, user mental models, home automation, transparency
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