MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284682843 · doi:10.1145/3511047.3537678

Creating a User Model to Support User-specific Explanations of AI Systems

2022· article· en· W4284682843 on OpenAlex
Owen Chambers, Robin Cohen, Maura R. Grossman, Queenie Chen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransparency (behavior)Position paperUser modelingContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionData scienceBlack boxUser interfaceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a framework that supports providing user-specific explanations of AI systems. This is achieved by proposing a particular approach for modeling a user which enables a decision procedure to reason about how much detail to provide in an explanation. We also clarify the circumstances under which it is best not to provide an explanation at all, as one novel aspect of our design. While transparency of black box AI systems is an important aim for ethical AI, efforts to date are often one-size-fits-all. Our position is that more attention should be paid towards offering explanations that are context-specific, and our model takes an important step forward towards achieving that aim.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207