Data-Centric Explanations: Explaining Training Data of Machine Learning Systems to Promote Transparency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training datasets fundamentally impact the performance of machine learning (ML) systems. Any biases introduced during training (implicit or explicit) are often reflected in the system's behaviors leading to questions about fairness and loss of trust in the system. Yet, information on training data is rarely communicated to stakeholders. In this work, we explore the concept of data-centric explanations for ML systems that describe the training data to end-users. Through a formative study, we investigate the potential utility of such an approach, including the information about training data that participants find most compelling. In a second study, we investigate reactions to our explanations across four different system scenarios. Our results suggest that data-centric explanations have the potential to impact how users judge the trustworthiness of a system and to assist users in assessing fairness. We discuss the implications of our findings for designing explanations to support users’ perceptions of ML systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".