Wei Yan Low

Tong Zhang, Mengao Zhang, Wei Yan Low et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to provide insights into the decisions made by AI models. To date, most XAI approaches provide only one-time, static explanations, which cannot cater to users' diverse knowledge levels and information needs. Conversational explanations have been proposed as an effective method to customize XAI explanations. However, building conversational explanation systems is hindered by the scarcity of training data. Training with synthetic data faces two main challenges: lack of data diversity and hallucination in the generated data. To alleviate these issues, we introduce a repetition penalty to promote data diversity and exploit a hallucination detector to filter out untruthful synthetic conversation turns. We conducted both automatic and human evaluations on the proposed system, fEw-shot Multi-round ConvErsational Explanation (EMCEE). For automatic evaluation, EMCEE achieves relative improvements of 81.6% in BLEU and 80.5% in ROUGE compared to the baselines. EMCEE also mitigates the degeneration of data quality caused by training on synthetic data. In human evaluations (N=60), EMCEE outperforms baseline models and the control group in improving users' comprehension, acceptance, trust, and collaboration with static explanations by large margins. Through a fine-grained analysis of model responses, we further demonstrate that training on self-generated synthetic data improves the model's ability to generate more truthful and understandable answers, leading to better user interactions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first conversational explanation method that can answer free-form user questions following static explanations.

Gabriel R. Lau, Wei Yan Low, Louis Tay et al.

Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value. The present research conceptualises critical thinking in AI use as a dispositional tendency to verify the source and content of AI-generated information, to understand how models work and where they fail, and to reflect on the broader implications of relying on AI. Across six studies (N = 1365), we developed and validated the 13-item critical thinking in AI use scale and mapped its nomological network. Study 1 generated and content-validated scale items. Study 2 supported a three-factor structure (Verification, Motivation, and Reflection). Studies 3, 4, and 5 confirmed this higher-order model, demonstrated internal consistency and test-retest reliability, strong factor loadings, sex invariance, and convergent and discriminant validity. Studies 3 and 4 further revealed that critical thinking in AI use was positively associated with openness, extraversion, positive trait affect, and frequency of AI use. Lastly, Study 6 demonstrated criterion validity of the scale, with higher critical thinking in AI use scores predicting more frequent and diverse verification strategies, greater veracity-judgement accuracy in a novel and naturalistic ChatGPT-powered fact-checking task, and deeper reflection about responsible AI. Taken together, the current work clarifies why and how people exercise oversight over generative AI outputs and provides a validated scale and ecologically grounded task paradigm to support theory testing, cross-group, and longitudinal research on critical engagement with generative AI outputs.