Mining User Study Data to Judge the Merit of a Model for Supporting User‐Specific Explanations of <scp>AI</scp> Systems

ABSTRACT In this paper, we present a model for supporting user‐specific explanations of AI systems. We then discuss a user study that was conducted to gauge whether the decisions for adjusting output to users with certain characteristics was confirmed to be of value to participants. We focus on the merit of having explanations attuned to particular psychological profiles of users, and the value of having different options for the level of explanation that is offered (including allowing for no explanation, as one possibility). Following the description of the study, we present an approach for mining data from user participant responses in order to determine whether the model that was developed for varying the output to users was well‐founded. While our results in this respect are preliminary, we explain how using varied machine learning methods is of value as a concrete step toward validation of specific approaches for AI explanation. We conclude with a discussion of related work and some ideas for new directions with the research, in the future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computational Intelligence
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.70015
Primary Topic
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mining User Study Data to Judge the Merit of a Model for Supporting User‐Specific Explanations of AI Systems

Owen Chambers, Liam Hebert, Maura R. Grossman, Elias M. Awad et al.
Computational Intelligence
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
article

Mining User Study Data to Judge the Merit of a Model for Supporting User‐Specific Explanations of AI Systems

Owen Chambers, Liam Hebert, Maura R. Grossman, Elias M. Awad, Robin Cohen
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper, we present a model for supporting user‐specific explanations of AI systems. We then discuss a user study that was conducted to gauge whether the decisions for adjusting output to users with certain characteristics was confirmed to be of value to participants. We focus on the merit of having explanations attuned to particular psychological profiles of users, and the value of having different options for the level of explanation that is offered (including allowing for no explanation, as one possibility). Following the description of the study, we present an approach for mining data from user participant responses in order to determine whether the model that was developed for varying the output to users was well‐founded. While our results in this respect are preliminary, we explain how using varied machine learning methods is of value as a concrete step toward validation of specific approaches for AI explanation. We conclude with a discussion of related work and some ideas for new directions with the research, in the future.

Computational IntelligenceVol. 40(6)
University of Waterloo (CA)
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.