Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences

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 2001.02478 v3 pith:RXFZ3BC4 submitted 2020-01-08 cs.HC cs.AIcs.LGcs.SE

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

A surge of interest in explainable AI (XAI) has led to a vast collection of algorithmic work on the topic. While many recognize the necessity to incorporate explainability features in AI systems, how to address real-world user needs for understanding AI remains an open question. By interviewing 20 UX and design practitioners working on various AI products, we seek to identify gaps between the current XAI algorithmic work and practices to create explainable AI products. To do so, we develop an algorithm-informed XAI question bank in which user needs for explainability are represented as prototypical questions users might ask about the AI, and use it as a study probe. Our work contributes insights into the design space of XAI, informs efforts to support design practices in this space, and identifies opportunities for future XAI work. We also provide an extended XAI question bank and discuss how it can be used for creating user-centered XAI.

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. Finding Uncommon Ground: A Human-Centered Model for Extrospective Explanations

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AI explanations should present the least-supported beliefs in the agent's reasoning, because those are the likely source of user surprise when behavior is unexpected.

Pith tools