Large-scale AI models such as GPT -4 have accelerated the deployment of artificial intelligence across critical domains including law, healthcare, and finance, raising urgent questions about trust and transparency. This study investigates the relationship between explainability and user trust in AI systems through a quantitative experimental design. Using an interactive, web-based loan approval simulation, we compare how different types of explanations--ranging from basic feature importance to interactive counterfactuals--influence perceived trust. Results suggest that interactivity enhances both user engagement and confidence, and that the clarity and relevance of explanations are key determinants of trust. These findings contribute empirical evidence to the growing field of human-centered explainable AI, highlighting measurable effects of explainability design on user perception.

Despite its technological breakthroughs, eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research has limited success in producing the {\em effective explanations} needed by users. In order to improve XAI systems' usability, practical interpretability, and efficacy for real users, the emerging area of {\em Explainable Interfaces} (EIs) focuses on the user interface and user experience design aspects of XAI. This paper presents a systematic survey of 53 publications to identify current trends in human-XAI interaction and promising directions for EI design and development. This is among the first systematic survey of EI research.

In the realm of interactive machine-learning systems, the provision of explanations serves as a vital aid in the processes of debugging and enhancing prediction models. However, the extent to which various global model-centric and data-centric explanations can effectively assist domain experts in detecting and resolving potential data-related issues for the purpose of model improvement has remained largely unexplored. In this technical report, we summarise the key findings of our two user studies. Our research involved a comprehensive examination of the impact of global explanations rooted in both data-centric and model-centric perspectives within systems designed to support healthcare experts in optimising machine learning models through both automated and manual data configurations. To empirically investigate these dynamics, we conducted two user studies, comprising quantitative analysis involving a sample size of 70 healthcare experts and qualitative assessments involving 30 healthcare experts. These studies were aimed at illuminating the influence of different explanation types on three key dimensions: trust, understandability, and model improvement. Results show that global model-centric explanations alone are insufficient for effectively guiding users during the intricate process of data configuration. In contrast, data-centric explanations exhibited their potential by enhancing the understanding of system changes that occur post-configuration. However, a combination of both showed the highest level of efficacy for fostering trust, improving understandability, and facilitating model enhancement among healthcare experts. We also present essential implications for developing interactive machine-learning systems driven by explanations. These insights can guide the creation of more effective systems that empower domain experts to harness the full potential of machine learning

With the rapid development of AI-based decision aids, different forms of AI assistance have been increasingly integrated into the human decision making processes. To best support humans in decision making, it is essential to quantitatively understand how diverse forms of AI assistance influence humans' decision making behavior. To this end, much of the current research focuses on the end-to-end prediction of human behavior using ``black-box'' models, often lacking interpretations of the nuanced ways in which AI assistance impacts the human decision making process. Meanwhile, methods that prioritize the interpretability of human behavior predictions are often tailored for one specific form of AI assistance, making adaptations to other forms of assistance difficult. In this paper, we propose a computational framework that can provide an interpretable characterization of the influence of different forms of AI assistance on decision makers in AI-assisted decision making. By conceptualizing AI assistance as the ``{\em nudge}'' in human decision making processes, our approach centers around modelling how different forms of AI assistance modify humans' strategy in weighing different information in making their decisions. Evaluations on behavior data collected from real human decision makers show that the proposed framework outperforms various baselines in accurately predicting human behavior in AI-assisted decision making. Based on the proposed framework, we further provide insights into how individuals with different cognitive styles are nudged by AI assistance differently.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

In the past few years, "AI" has become a major buzzword in technology. The prospect of a computer being able to do tasks which only a human could perform is a captivating thought. AIs can be created using multiple different methods, but one of the most popular ones right now involves the use of deep neural networks (DNNs). These structures try to mimic the neural connections and function of the brain and are generally trained on a dataset before they are deployed in the real world. By training them on a dataset beforehand, DNNs can be'taught' to identify features in an image.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms have become ubiquitous. Although they offer a wide range of benefits, their adoption in decision-critical fields is limited by their lack of interpretability, particularly with textual data. Moreover, with more data available than ever before, it has become increasingly important to explain automated predictions. Generally, users find it difficult to understand the underlying computational processes and interact with the models, especially when the models fail to generate the outcomes or explanations, or both, correctly. This problem highlights the growing need for users to better understand the models' inner workings and gain control over their actions. This dissertation focuses on two fundamental challenges of addressing this need. The first involves explanation generation: inferring high-quality explanations from text documents in a scalable and data-driven manner. The second challenge consists in making explanations actionable, and we refer to it as critiquing. This dissertation examines two important applications in natural language processing and recommendation tasks. Overall, we demonstrate that interpretability does not come at the cost of reduced performance in two consequential applications. Our framework is applicable to other fields as well. This dissertation presents an effective means of closing the gap between promise and practice in artificial intelligence.

Claes Lundström examines a digital pathology slide. The tools of the future are tested using AI technology and imaging at the national research arena AIDA. If artificial intelligence (AI) is to be of help in healthcare, people and machines must be able to work effectively together. A new study shows that doctors who use AI when examining tissue samples can work faster, while still doing high-quality work. How can AI systems in healthcare be designed to facilitate the interaction between people and computers?

As a technical sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI), explainable AI (XAI) has produced a vast collection of algorithms, providing a toolbox for researchers and practitioners to build XAI applications. With the rich application opportunities, explainability has moved beyond a demand by data scientists or researchers to comprehend the models they are developing, to become an essential requirement for people to trust and adopt AI deployed in numerous domains. However, explainability is an inherently human-centric property and the field is starting to embrace human-centered approaches. Human-computer interaction (HCI) research and user experience (UX) design in this area are becoming increasingly important. In this chapter, we begin with a high-level overview of the technical landscape of XAI algorithms, then selectively survey our own and other recent HCI works that take human-centered approaches to design, evaluate, provide conceptual and methodological tools for XAI. We ask the question "\textit{what are human-centered approaches doing for XAI}" and highlight three roles that they play in shaping XAI technologies by helping navigate, assess and expand the XAI toolbox: to drive technical choices by users' explainability needs, to uncover pitfalls of existing XAI methods and inform new methods, and to provide conceptual frameworks for human-compatible XAI.

Research into the explanation of machine learning models, i.e., explainable AI (XAI), has seen a commensurate exponential growth alongside deep artificial neural networks throughout the past decade. For historical reasons, explanation and trust have been intertwined. However, the focus on trust is too narrow, and has led the research community astray from tried and true empirical methods that produced more defensible scientific knowledge about people and explanations. To address this, we contribute a practical path forward for researchers in the XAI field. We recommend researchers focus on the utility of machine learning explanations instead of trust. We outline five broad use cases where explanations are useful and, for each, we describe pseudo-experiments that rely on objective empirical measurements and falsifiable hypotheses. We believe that this experimental rigor is necessary to contribute to scientific knowledge in the field of XAI.