SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Helmut Degen

Publications and source records attributed to Helmut Degen.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

What Should Explanations Contain? A Human-Centered Explanation Content Model for Local, Post-Hoc Explanations

Which categories of explanation content are relevant for users of industrial AI systems, and how can those categories be organized for local, post-hoc explanations? To address these questions, a hybrid inductive-deductive qualitative content analysis was applied to 325 meaning units drawn from six user studies in building technology, manufacturing, AI software development, and hospital cybersecurity. The inductive phase produced an initial twelve-code structure. A theory-informed coverage assessment and expert review then added two further codes, Rule base and What-if backward, that were not instantiated in the corpus but correspond to system architectures documented in the XAI literature. The resulting fourteen-code model is organized into four groups: rule-based, causal, epistemic (actual), and epistemic (similar), with twelve codes grounded in the corpus and two as theoretical extensions. An eleven-member expert panel supported the content adequacy of all codes (I-CVI $\geq$ 0.82; scale-level agreement of 0.93 for relevance, 0.92 for boundary clarity, and 0.94 for understandability). A stratified subsample of 82 units (25\% of the corpus), coded independently by two researchers using the finalized codebook, yielded Krippendorff's $\alpha = 0.920$ and Cohen's $\kappa = 0.920$. The paper therefore establishes content adequacy and coding reproducibility for a content-level explanation model intended to support elicitation, specification, and later evaluation of explanation content in industrial AI systems. Behavioral validation of downstream effects remains future work.

cs.HC

How to explain it to data scientists? A mixed-methods user study about explainable AI, using mental models for explanations

In the context of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), limited research has identified role-specific explanation needs. This study investigates the explanation needs of data scientists, who are responsible for training, testing, deploying, and maintaining machine learning (ML) models in AI systems. The research aims to determine specific explanation content of data scientists. A task analysis identified user goals and proactive user tasks. Using explanation questions, task-specific explanation needs and content were identified. From these individual explanations, we developed a mental model for explanations, which was validated and revised through a qualitative study (n=12). In a second quantitative study (n=12), we examined which explanation intents (reason, comparison, accuracy, prediction, trust) require which type of explanation content from the mental model. The findings are: F1: Explanation content for data scientists comes from the application domain, system domain, and AI domain. F2: Explanation content can be complex and should be organized sequentially and/or in hierarchies (novelty claim). F3: Explanation content includes context, inputs, evidence, attributes, ranked list, interim results, efficacy principle, and input/output relationships (novelty claim). F4: Explanation content should be organized as a causal story. F5: Standardized explanation questions ensure complete coverage of explanation needs (novelty claim). F6: Refining mental models for explanations increases significantly its quality (novelty claim).

cs.HC

A Study on Interaction Complexity and Time

Testing Web User Interfaces (UIs) requires considerable time and effort and resources, most notably participants for user testing. Additionally, the tests results may demand adjustments on the UI, taking further resources and testing. Early tests can make this process less costly with the help of low fidelity prototypes, but it is difficult to conduct user tests on them, and recruiting participants is still necessary. To tackle this issue, there are tools that can predict UI aspects like interaction time, as the well-known KLM model. Another aspect that can be predicted is complexity, and this was achieved by the Big I notation, which can be applied to early UX concepts like lo-fi wireframes. Big I assists developers in estimating the interaction complexity, specified as a function of user steps, which are composed of abstracted user actions. Interaction complexity is expressed in mathematical terms, making the comparison of interaction complexities for various UX concepts easy. However, big I is not able to predict execution time for user actions, which would be very helpful for early assessment of lo-fi prototypes. To address this shortcoming, in this paper we present a study in which we took measurements from real users (n=100) completing tasks in a fictitious website, in order to derive average times per interaction step. Using these results, we were able to study the relationship between interaction complexity and time and ultimately complement big I predictions with time estimates.

cs.HC