| Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems |
| Full text |
Pdf
(1.03 MB)
|
Source
|
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
archive
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems
table of contents
Boston, MA, USA
SESSION: Studying intelligent systems
table of contents
Pages 2119-2128
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-246-7
|
|
Authors
|
|
| Sponsors |
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 54, Downloads (12 Months): 283, Citation Count: 0
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
Context-aware intelligent systems employ implicit inputs, and make decisions based on complex rules and machine learning models that are rarely clear to users. Such lack of system intelligibility can lead to loss of user trust, satisfaction and acceptance of these systems. However, automatically providing explanations about a system's decision process can help mitigate this problem. In this paper we present results from a controlled study with over 200 participants in which the effectiveness of different types of explanations was examined. Participants were shown examples of a system's operation along with various automatically generated explanations, and then tested on their understanding of the system. We show, for example, that explanations describing why the system behaved a certain way resulted in better understanding and stronger feelings of trust. Explanations describing why the system did not behave a certain way, resulted in lower understanding yet adequate performance. We discuss implications for the use of our findings in real-world context-aware applications.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Amazon Mechanical Turk. http://www.mturk.com. Retrieved 16 Sep 2008.
|
| |
2
|
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R.,&Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167--207.
|
| |
3
|
Andrews, R., Diederich, J.&Tickle, A. (1995). A Survey and Critique of Techniques for Extracting Rules from Trained Artificial Neural Networks. Knowledge Based Systems. 8: 373--389.
|
| |
4
|
Assad, M., Carmichael, D.J., Kay, J.&Kummerfeld, B. (2007). PersonisAD: Distributed, Active, Scrutable Model Framework for Context-Aware Services. Pervasive 2007, 55--72.
|
 |
5
|
|
| |
6
|
|
 |
7
|
Victoria Bellotti , Maribeth Back , W. Keith Edwards , Rebecca E. Grinter , Austin Henderson , Cristina Lopes, Making sense of sensing systems: five questions for designers and researchers, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
[doi> 10.1145/503376.503450]
|
| |
8
|
Keith Cheverst , Hee Eon Byun , Dan Fitton , Corina Sas , Chris Kray , Nicolas Villar, Exploring Issues of User Model Transparency and Proactive Behaviour in an Office Environment Control System, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, v.15 n.3-4, p.235-273, August 2005
[doi> 10.1007/s11257-005-1269-8]
|
| |
9
|
Davis, R., Buchanan, B., and Shortliffe, E. (1977). Production rules as a representation for a knowledge-based consultation program. Artificial Intelligence, 8(1): 15--45.
|
 |
10
|
|
| |
11
|
Dourish, P., Adler, A.&Smith, B.C. (1996). Organising User Interfaces Around Reflective Accounts. Reflection'96, 235--244.
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
Google Web Toolkit. http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/. Retrieved 16 Sep 2008.
|
| |
14
|
|
 |
15
|
|
 |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
Martin Možina , Janez Demšar , Michael Kattan , Blaž Zupan, Nomograms for visualization of naive Bayesian classifier, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, p.337-348, September 20-24, 2004, Pisa, Italy
|
| |
18
|
McGuinness, D.L., Glass, A., Wolverton, M.&Pinheiro da Silva, P. (2007). A Categorization of Explanation Questions for Task Processing Systems. AAAI Workshop on Explanation-Aware Computing.
|
| |
19
|
Muir, B. (1994). Trust in automation: Part i. theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11): 1905--1922.
|
 |
20
|
Brad A. Myers , David A. Weitzman , Andrew J. Ko , Duen H. Chau, Answering why and why not questions in user interfaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada
[doi> 10.1145/1124772.1124832]
|
| |
21
|
Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York, Doubleday.
|
| |
22
|
|
| |
23
|
|
 |
24
|
Joe Tullio , Anind K. Dey , Jason Chalecki , James Fogarty, How it works: a field study of non-technical users interacting with an intelligent system, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 28-May 03, 2007, San Jose, California, USA
[doi> 10.1145/1240624.1240630]
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3): 94--104.
|
| |
27
|
Weiser, M.&Brown, J.S., (1995). Designing Calm Technology. PowerGrid Journal v1.01.
|
|