Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations

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 1911.06473 v1 pith:VVQHGLXA submitted 2019-11-15 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords blackexplanationsmisleadingusertrustboxeshumanmislead
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in critical domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there has been a growing emphasis on developing techniques for explaining these black boxes in a human interpretable manner. It has recently become apparent that a high-fidelity explanation of a black box ML model may not accurately reflect the biases in the black box. As a consequence, explanations have the potential to mislead human users into trusting a problematic black box. In this work, we rigorously explore the notion of misleading explanations and how they influence user trust in black-box models. More specifically, we propose a novel theoretical framework for understanding and generating misleading explanations, and carry out a user study with domain experts to demonstrate how these explanations can be used to mislead users. Our work is the first to empirically establish how user trust in black box models can be manipulated via misleading explanations.

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. OpenAlex reports about 27 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Comparative Analysis of Black-Box and White-Box Machine Learning Model in Phishing Detection

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    EBM and XGBoost achieve comparable phishing detection accuracy across 12 datasets, with EBM showing advantages in explanation stability, accuracy, and actionability based on qualitative SHAP analysis.

Pith tools