Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Don't Explain without Verifying Veracity: An Evaluation of Explainable AI with Video Activity Recognition

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 2005.02335 v1 pith:EQM4AO6Y submitted 2020-05-05 cs.HC cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.LG
keywords explanationsuserexplainablemodelperformanceveracitymightmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Explainable machine learning and artificial intelligence models have been used to justify a model's decision-making process. This added transparency aims to help improve user performance and understanding of the underlying model. However, in practice, explainable systems face many open questions and challenges. Specifically, designers might reduce the complexity of deep learning models in order to provide interpretability. The explanations generated by these simplified models, however, might not accurately justify and be truthful to the model. This can further add confusion to the users as they might not find the explanations meaningful with respect to the model predictions. Understanding how these explanations affect user behavior is an ongoing challenge. In this paper, we explore how explanation veracity affects user performance and agreement in intelligent systems. Through a controlled user study with an explainable activity recognition system, we compare variations in explanation veracity for a video review and querying task. The results suggest that low veracity explanations significantly decrease user performance and agreement compared to both accurate explanations and a system without explanations. These findings demonstrate the importance of accurate and understandable explanations and caution that poor explanations can sometimes be worse than no explanations with respect to their effect on user performance and reliance on an AI system.

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. "Trust Junk" Leads to Unjustified Support for Highly Discriminatory Predictive Models

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Accurate but irrelevant 'trust junk' in AI explanations made crowdsourced users trust and agree with a deliberately discriminatory model more.

Pith tools