Related papers: Not satisfied about the analysis

The inconsistency of cond-mat/0007299 and Phys. Rev. B 63 094510 (2001) with ARPES and resistivity data is pointed-out.

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to an unlikely results.

The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which…

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors. We have discovered an error in the evaluation of the diagram, which invalidates our conclusion.

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due an error involving the weak* convergence argument in section 2

In this note, it is shown that the results claimed in the paper [1]---as well as the examples presented there---are, unfortunately, incorrect.

This paper was withdrawn by arXiv admins because of inappropriate and unverifiable claims of appropriation.

Providing natural language explanations for recommendations is particularly useful from the perspective of a non-expert user. Although several methods for providing such explanations have recently been proposed, we argue that an important…

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used in high-stakes domains of our life, increasing the need to explain these decisions and to make sure that they are aligned with how we want the decision to be made. The field of…

Modern recommender systems face an increasing need to explain their recommendations. Despite considerable progress in this area, evaluating the quality of explanations remains a significant challenge for researchers and practitioners. Prior…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author, since one of the key results duplicates existing work, as pointed out by a reader. I am currently revising the manuscript.

The experimental findings reported in our original paper [1] (arXiv:1211.2913) have been criticized in ref.[2] (arXiv:1606.00710). We believe that the arguments brought in ref. [2] are not correct and we show evidence for this.

With the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based decision-making, explanations help increase new technology adoption through enhanced trust and reliability. However, our experimental study challenges the notion that every user…

Automated decision systems (ADS) are increasingly used for consequential decision-making. These systems often rely on sophisticated yet opaque machine learning models, which do not allow for understanding how a given decision was arrived…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author.

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…

Humans tend to strongly agree on ratings on a scale for extreme cases (e.g., a CAT is judged as very concrete), but judgements on mid-scale words exhibit more disagreement. Yet, collected rating norms are heavily exploited across…

In the recent review article, P.Markos admits that practically all numerical results on the critical behavior near the Anderson transition are in conflict with analytical expectations, but no serious discussion of this fact is given. The…

The original version of this paper contains an error; when this is corrected the basic conclusion changes. A revised manuscript will be submitted shortly.