Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluative Item-Contrastive Explanations in Rankings

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 2312.10094 v1 pith:IIYRPP46 submitted 2023-12-14 cs.IR cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC

classification cs.IRcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords rankingevaluativeexplanationsapplicationitem-contrastivesystemsacademiaaddressing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The remarkable success of Artificial Intelligence in advancing automated decision-making is evident both in academia and industry. Within the plethora of applications, ranking systems hold significant importance in various domains. This paper advocates for the application of a specific form of Explainable AI -- namely, contrastive explanations -- as particularly well-suited for addressing ranking problems. This approach is especially potent when combined with an Evaluative AI methodology, which conscientiously evaluates both positive and negative aspects influencing a potential ranking. Therefore, the present work introduces Evaluative Item-Contrastive Explanations tailored for ranking systems and illustrates its application and characteristics through an experiment conducted on publicly available data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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