Exploring the Effect of Explanation Content and Format on User Comprehension and Trust

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17401v1
• Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:36:53 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Effect of Explanation Content and Format on User Comprehension and Trust
• Authors: Antonio Rago, Bence Palfi, Purin Sukpanichnant, Hannibal Nabli, Kavyesh Vivek, Olga Kostopoulou, James Kinross, Francesca Toni,
• Abstract summary: We focus on explanations for a regression tool for assessing cancer risk. We examine the effect of the explanations' content and format on the user-centric metrics of comprehension and trust.
• Score: 11.433655064494896
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, various methods have been introduced for explaining the outputs of "black-box" AI models. However, it is not well understood whether users actually comprehend and trust these explanations. In this paper, we focus on explanations for a regression tool for assessing cancer risk and examine the effect of the explanations' content and format on the user-centric metrics of comprehension and trust. Regarding content, we experiment with two explanation methods: the popular SHAP, based on game-theoretic notions and thus potentially complex for everyday users to comprehend, and occlusion-1, based on feature occlusion which may be more comprehensible. Regarding format, we present SHAP explanations as charts (SC), as is conventional, and occlusion-1 explanations as charts (OC) as well as text (OT), to which their simpler nature also lends itself. The experiments amount to user studies questioning participants, with two different levels of expertise (the general population and those with some medical training), on their subjective and objective comprehension of and trust in explanations for the outputs of the regression tool. In both studies we found a clear preference in terms of subjective comprehension and trust for occlusion-1 over SHAP explanations in general, when comparing based on content. However, direct comparisons of explanations when controlling for format only revealed evidence for OT over SC explanations in most cases, suggesting that the dominance of occlusion-1 over SHAP explanations may be driven by a preference for text over charts as explanations. Finally, we found no evidence of a difference between the explanation types in terms of objective comprehension. Thus overall, the choice of the content and format of explanations needs careful attention, since in some contexts format, rather than content, may play the critical role in improving user experience.

Related papers

• Fool Me Once? Contrasting Textual and Visual Explanations in a Clinical Decision-Support Setting [43.110187812734864]
  We evaluate three types of explanations: visual explanations (saliency maps), natural language explanations, and a combination of both modalities. We find that text-based explanations lead to significant over-reliance, which is alleviated by combining them with saliency maps. We also observe that the quality of explanations, that is, how much factually correct information they entail, and how much this aligns with AI correctness, significantly impacts the usefulness of the different explanation types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:43:02Z)
• Contrastive Learning with Counterfactual Explanations for Radiology Report Generation [83.30609465252441]
  We propose a textbfCountertextbfFactual textbfExplanations-based framework (CoFE) for radiology report generation. Counterfactual explanations serve as a potent tool for understanding how decisions made by algorithms can be changed by asking what if'' scenarios. Experiments on two benchmarks demonstrate that leveraging the counterfactual explanations enables CoFE to generate semantically coherent and factually complete reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:24:25Z)
• Explainability for Machine Learning Models: From Data Adaptability to User Perception [0.8702432681310401]
  This thesis explores the generation of local explanations for already deployed machine learning models. It aims to identify optimal conditions for producing meaningful explanations considering both data and user requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:44:37Z)
• What if you said that differently?: How Explanation Formats Affect Human Feedback Efficacy and User Perception [53.4840989321394]
  We analyze the effect of rationales generated by QA models to support their answers. We present users with incorrect answers and corresponding rationales in various formats. We measure the effectiveness of this feedback in patching these rationales through in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T04:26:32Z)
• Robust and Interpretable Medical Image Classifiers via Concept Bottleneck Models [49.95603725998561]
  We propose a new paradigm to build robust and interpretable medical image classifiers with natural language concepts. Specifically, we first query clinical concepts from GPT-4, then transform latent image features into explicit concepts with a vision-language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T21:57:09Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• Evaluating GPT-3 Generated Explanations for Hateful Content Moderation [8.63841985804905]
  We use GPT-3 to generate explanations for both hateful and non-hateful content. A survey was conducted with 2,400 unique respondents to evaluate the generated explanations. Our findings reveal that human evaluators rated the GPT-generated explanations as high quality in terms of linguistic fluency, informativeness, persuasiveness, and logical soundness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T10:05:13Z)
• "Nothing Abnormal": Disambiguating Medical Reports via Contrastive Knowledge Infusion [6.9551174393701345]
  We propose a rewriting algorithm based on contrastive pretraining and perturbation-based rewriting. We create two datasets, OpenI-Annotated based on chest reports and VA-Annotated based on general medical reports. Our proposed algorithm effectively rewrites input sentences in a less ambiguous way with high content fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T02:01:20Z)
• Directive Explanations for Monitoring the Risk of Diabetes Onset: Introducing Directive Data-Centric Explanations and Combinations to Support What-If Explorations [1.7109770736915972]
  This paper presents an explanation dashboard that predicts the risk of diabetes onset. It explains those predictions with data-centric, feature-importance, and example-based explanations. We conducted a study with 11 healthcare experts and a mixed-methods study with 45 healthcare experts and 51 diabetic patients.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-21T13:40:16Z)
• Informing clinical assessment by contextualizing post-hoc explanations of risk prediction models in type-2 diabetes [50.8044927215346]
  We consider a comorbidity risk prediction scenario and focus on contexts regarding the patients clinical state. We employ several state-of-the-art LLMs to present contexts around risk prediction model inferences and evaluate their acceptability. Our paper is one of the first end-to-end analyses identifying the feasibility and benefits of contextual explanations in a real-world clinical use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T18:07:11Z)
• The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-Shot In-Context Learning [50.77996380021221]
  We focus on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We show that explanations judged as good by humans--those that are logically consistent with the input--usually indicate more accurate predictions. We present a framework for calibrating model predictions based on the reliability of the explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T17:57:58Z)
• Features of Explainability: How users understand counterfactual and causal explanations for categorical and continuous features in XAI [10.151828072611428]
  Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used to address interpretability, recourse, and bias in AI decisions. We tested the effects of counterfactual and causal explanations on the objective accuracy of users predictions. We also found that users understand explanations referring to categorical features more readily than those referring to continuous features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T15:01:09Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• Rationalization through Concepts [27.207067974031805]
  We present a novel self-interpretable model called ConRAT. Inspired by how human explanations for high-level decisions are often based on key concepts, ConRAT infers which ones are described in the document. Two regularizers drive ConRAT to build interpretable concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T07:46:48Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language? [86.60613602337246]
  We introduce a leakage-adjusted simulatability (LAS) metric for evaluating NL explanations. LAS measures how well explanations help an observer predict a model's output, while controlling for how explanations can directly leak the output. We frame explanation generation as a multi-agent game and optimize explanations for simulatability while penalizing label leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T16:59:07Z)
• Assessing the Severity of Health States based on Social Media Posts [62.52087340582502]
  We propose a multiview learning framework that models both the textual content as well as contextual-information to assess the severity of the user's health state. The diverse NLU views demonstrate its effectiveness on both the tasks and as well as on the individual disease to assess a user's health.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-21T03:45:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.