Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2001.09219 v4 pith:RJVZC3C4 submitted 2020-01-24 cs.HC cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.LG
keywords learningmachinemodelteacheractiveexperienceexplainableexplanations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The wide adoption of Machine Learning technologies has created a rapidly growing demand for people who can train ML models. Some advocated the term "machine teacher" to refer to the role of people who inject domain knowledge into ML models. One promising learning paradigm is Active Learning (AL), by which the model intelligently selects instances to query the machine teacher for labels. However, in current AL settings, the human-AI interface remains minimal and opaque. We begin considering AI explanations as a core element of the human-AI interface for teaching machines. When a human student learns, it is a common pattern to present one's own reasoning and solicit feedback from the teacher. When a ML model learns and still makes mistakes, the human teacher should be able to understand the reasoning underlying the mistakes. When the model matures, the machine teacher should be able to recognize its progress in order to trust and feel confident about their teaching outcome. Toward this vision, we propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an AL setting. We conducted an empirical study comparing the model learning outcomes, feedback content and experience with XAL, to that of traditional AL and coactive learning (providing the model's prediction without the explanation). Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload. Our study also reveals important individual factors that mediate a machine teacher's reception to AI explanations, including task knowledge, AI experience and need for cognition. By reflecting on the results, we suggest future directions and design implications for XAL.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Human-in-the-Loop User Feedback Affects Perceived Accuracy and Trust, but Task Subjectivity Matters

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Interactive feedback was associated with a more negative perceived-accuracy trend in an objective face-detection task, but no such bias appeared in two subjective text-classification studies.

  2. An Empirical Examination of the Evaluative AI Framework

    cs.HC 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pre-registered experiment found that an AI providing only pro and con evidence, without recommendations, did not improve decision performance and was used shallowly by participants.

Pith tools