mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on the interpretation of rule-based machine learning models

arXiv 1804.02969 ↗First posted 9 Apr 2018stat.ML cs.AI cs.LGcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While the interpretability of machine learning models is often equated with their mere syntactic comprehensibility, we think that interpretability goes beyond that, and that human interpretability should also be investigated from the point of view of cognitive science. The goal of this paper is to discuss to what extent cognitive biases may affect human understanding of interpretable machine learning models, in particular of logical rules discovered from data. Twenty cognitive biases are covered, as are possible debiasing techniques that can be adopted by designers of machine learning algorithms and software. Our review transfers results obtained in cognitive psychology to the domain of machine learning, aiming to bridge the current gap between these two areas. It needs to be followed by empirical studies specifically focused on the machine learning domain.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 6; 2023: 5; 2024: 6; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2022Fairness via Explanation Quality: Evaluating Disparities in the Quality of Post hoc Explanationscited by 40
  2. 2025T2VPhysBench: A First-Principles Benchmark for Physical Consistency in Text-to-Video Generationcited by 39
  3. 2024FAIntbench: A Holistic and Precise Benchmark for Bias Evaluation in Text-to-Image Modelscited by 22
  4. 2024Towards Unifying Evaluation of Counterfactual Explanations: Leveraging Large Language Models for Human-Centric Assessmentscited by 8
  5. 2022Why we need biased AI -- How including cognitive and ethical machine biases can enhance AI systemscited by 7
  6. 2022Interpretable Learned Emergent Communication for Human-Agent Teamscited by 6
  7. 2024Why do explanations fail? A typology and discussion on failures in XAIcited by 6
  8. 2022BIASeD: Bringing Irrationality into Automated System Designcited by 5
  9. 2023Exploring Qualitative Research Using LLMscited by 5
  10. 2022The Roles and Modes of Human Interactions with Automated Machine Learning Systemscited by 4
  11. 2025MCP-Orchestrated Multi-Agent System for Automated Disinformation Detectioncited by 4
  12. 2023Unpacking Human-AI Interaction in Safety-Critical Industries: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 3
10 more
  1. 2023A survey on bias in machine learning researchcited by 2
  2. 2024Explaining Predictions by Characteristic Rulescited by 2
  3. 2024Understanding with toy surrogate models in machine learningcited by 2
  4. 2023Stable and Interpretable Deep Learning for Tabular Data: Introducing InterpreTabNet with the Novel InterpreStability Metriccited by 1
  5. 2023Identifying and examining machine learning biases on Adult datasetcited by 1
  6. 2024Meaningless is better: hashing bias-inducing words in LLM prompts improves performance in logical reasoning and statistical learningcited by 1
  7. 2026Explaining Group Recommendations via Counterfactualscited by 1
  8. 2022Personalized Detection of Cognitive Biases in Actions of Users from Their Logs: Anchoring and Recency Biasescited by 0
  9. 2025Biased Minds Meet Biased AI: How Class Imbalance Shapes Appropriate Reliance and Interacts with Human Base Rate Neglectcited by 0
  10. 2026Deep Active Re-Labeling: Toward Noise-Resilient Annotation Efficiencycited by 0