mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Illusion of Competence: Evaluating the Effect of Explanations on Users' Mental Models of Visual Question Answering Systems

arXiv 2406.19170 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2024cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We examine how users perceive the limitations of an AI system when it encounters a task that it cannot perform perfectly and whether providing explanations alongside its answers aids users in constructing an appropriate mental model of the system's capabilities and limitations. We employ a visual question answer and explanation task where we control the AI system's limitations by manipulating the visual inputs: during inference, the system either processes full-color or grayscale images. Our goal is to determine whether participants can perceive the limitations of the system. We hypothesize that explanations will make limited AI capabilities more transparent to users. However, our results show that explanations do not have this effect. Instead of allowing users to more accurately assess the limitations of the AI system, explanations generally increase users' perceptions of the system's competence - regardless of its actual performance.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2024.

Builds on

23 of 33 references.

References · 23

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,498
  5. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,489
  6. 2016CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoningcited by 1,445
  7. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  8. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  9. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
  10. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  11. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
  12. 2018Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidencecited by 179
11 more
  1. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166
  2. 2022Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Surveycited by 129
  3. 2021HIVE: Evaluating the Human Interpretability of Visual Explanationscited by 105
  4. 2021e-ViL: A Dataset and Benchmark for Natural Language Explanations in Vision-Language Taskscited by 84
  5. 2018Faithful Multimodal Explanation for Visual Question Answeringcited by 64
  6. 2022NLX-GPT: A Model for Natural Language Explanations in Vision and Vision-Language Taskscited by 60
  7. 2023A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertaintycited by 23
  8. 2022CLEVR-X: A Visual Reasoning Dataset for Natural Language Explanationscited by 16
  9. 2023Uni-NLX: Unifying Textual Explanations for Vision and Vision-Language Taskscited by 12
  10. 2022Harnessing the Power of Multi-Task Pretraining for Ground-Truth Level Natural Language Explanationscited by 6
  11. 2024Modeling the Quality of Dialogical Explanationscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

6 papers.