Survey for Categorising Explainable AI Studies Using Data Analysis Task Frameworks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Research into explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) for data analysis tasks suffer from a large number of contradictions and lack of concrete design recommendations stemming from gaps in understanding the tasks that require AI assistance. In this paper, we drew on multiple fields such as visual analytics, cognition, and dashboard design to propose a method for categorising and comparing XAI studies under three dimensions: what, why, and who. We identified the main problems as: inadequate descriptions of tasks, context-free studies, and insufficient testing with target users. We propose that studies should specifically report on their users' domain, AI, and data analysis expertise to illustrate the generalisability of their findings. We also propose study guidelines for designing and reporting XAI tasks to improve the XAI community's ability to parse the rapidly growing field. We hope that our contribution can help researchers and designers better identify which studies are most relevant to their work, what gaps exist in the research, and how to handle contradictory results regarding XAI design.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 82 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2025.
Builds on
22 of 82 references.
References · 22
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2022Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanationscited by 85
- 2020A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scorescited by 74
- 2022Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderationcited by 67
- 2024Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 38
- 2023Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Carecited by 37
- 2023Rethinking Human-AI Collaboration in Complex Medical Decision Making: A Case Study in Sepsis Diagnosiscited by 30
- 2021Assessing the Impact of Automated Suggestions on Decision Making: Domain Experts Mediate Model Errors but Take Less Initiativecited by 28
- 2019FlowSense: A Natural Language Interface for Visual Data Exploration within a Dataflow Systemcited by 25
- 2023How Do Data Analysts Respond to AI Assistance? A Wizard-of-Oz Studycited by 24
- 2017Iris: A Conversational Agent for Complex Taskscited by 22
10 more
- 2021Fits and Starts: Enterprise Use of AutoML and the Role of Humans in the Loopcited by 21
- 2024Task Supportive and Personalized Human-Large Language Model Interaction: A User Studycited by 17
- 2021Snowy: Recommending Utterances for Conversational Visual Analysiscited by 14
- 2019Discovering the Sweet Spot of Human-Computer Configurations: A Case Study in Information Extractioncited by 11
- 2018Ethical Dimensions of Visualization Researchcited by 10
- 2021EDAssistant: Supporting Exploratory Data Analysis in Computational Notebooks with In-Situ Code Search and Recommendationcited by 8
- 2019Paths Explored, Paths Omitted, Paths Obscured: Decision Points & Selective Reporting in End-to-End Data Analysiscited by 7
- 2023"If I Had All the Time in the World": Ophthalmologists' Perceptions of Anchoring Bias Mitigation in Clinical AI Supportcited by 5
- 2023Perceptual Pat: A Virtual Human System for Iterative Visualization Designcited by 4
- 2022Data Quality, Mismatched Expectations, and Moving Requirements: The Challenges of User-Centred Dashboard Designcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.