Predicting Satisfaction of Counterfactual Explanations from Human Ratings of Explanatory Qualities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13899v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 11:09:25 GMT
• Title: Predicting Satisfaction of Counterfactual Explanations from Human Ratings of Explanatory Qualities
• Authors: Marharyta Domnich, Rasmus Moorits Veski, Julius Välja, Kadi Tulver, Raul Vicente,
• Abstract summary: We analyze a dataset of counterfactual explanations that were evaluated by 206 human participants.<n>We find that feasibility and trust stand out as the strongest predictors of user satisfaction.<n>Other metrics explain 58% of the variance, highlighting the importance of additional explanatory qualities.
• Score: 0.873811641236639
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a widely used approach in Explainable AI, offering actionable insights into decision-making by illustrating how small changes to input data can lead to different outcomes. Despite their importance, evaluating the quality of counterfactual explanations remains an open problem. Traditional quantitative metrics, such as sparsity or proximity, fail to fully account for human preferences in explanations, while user studies are insightful but not scalable. Moreover, relying only on a single overall satisfaction rating does not lead to a nuanced understanding of why certain explanations are effective or not. To address this, we analyze a dataset of counterfactual explanations that were evaluated by 206 human participants, who rated not only overall satisfaction but also seven explanatory criteria: feasibility, coherence, complexity, understandability, completeness, fairness, and trust. Modeling overall satisfaction as a function of these criteria, we find that feasibility (the actionability of suggested changes) and trust (the belief that the changes would lead to the desired outcome) consistently stand out as the strongest predictors of user satisfaction, though completeness also emerges as a meaningful contributor. Crucially, even excluding feasibility and trust, other metrics explain 58% of the variance, highlighting the importance of additional explanatory qualities. Complexity appears independent, suggesting more detailed explanations do not necessarily reduce satisfaction. Strong metric correlations imply a latent structure in how users judge quality, and demographic background significantly shapes ranking patterns. These insights inform the design of counterfactual algorithms that adapt explanatory qualities to user expertise and domain context.

Related papers

• Learning to Reject Low-Quality Explanations via User Feedback [19.00554619010889]
  We introduce ULER (User-centric Low-quality Explanation Rejector), which learns a simple rejector from human ratings and per-feature relevance judgments.<n>Our experiments show that ULER outperforms both state-of-the-art and explanation-aware learning to reject strategies at LtX.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T08:40:28Z)
• All You Need for Counterfactual Explainability Is Principled and Reliable Estimate of Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty [27.344785490275864]
  We argue that transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence.<n>Inherently transparent models can benefit from human-centred explanatory insights.<n>At a higher level, integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T09:38:31Z)
• Evaluate Summarization in Fine-Granularity: Auto Evaluation with LLM [11.995534662701132]
  evaluating summarization accurately and objectively presents significant challenges.<n>Existing methods, such as ROUGE, often yield scores that have low correlation with human judgements.<n>We introduce a novel evaluation methodology and tooling designed to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T19:42:25Z)
• Towards counterfactual fairness through auxiliary variables [11.756940915048713]
  We introduce EXOgenous Causal reasoning (EXOC), a novel causal reasoning framework motivated by variables.<n>Our framework explicitly defines an auxiliary node and a control node that contribute to counterfactual fairness.<n>Our evaluation, conducted on synthetic and real-world datasets, validates EXOC's superiority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T04:23:05Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Goodhart's Law Applies to NLP's Explanation Benchmarks [57.26445915212884]
  We critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics. We show that we can inflate a model's comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T03:03:03Z)
• Improving Faithfulness of Abstractive Summarization by Controlling Confounding Effect of Irrelevant Sentences [38.919090721583075]
  We show that factual inconsistency can be caused by irrelevant parts of the input text, which act as confounders. We design a simple multi-task model to control such confounding by leveraging human-annotated relevant sentences when available. Our approach improves faithfulness scores by 20% over strong baselines on AnswerSumm citepfabbri 2021answersumm dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T18:51:06Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• 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)
• Show or Suppress? Managing Input Uncertainty in Machine Learning Model Explanations [5.695163312473304]
  Feature attribution is widely used in interpretable machine learning to explain how influential each measured input feature value is for an output inference. It is unclear how the awareness of input uncertainty can affect the trust in explanations. We propose two approaches to help users to manage their perception of uncertainty in a model explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-23T13:10:48Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)
• Accurate and Robust Feature Importance Estimation under Distribution Shifts [49.58991359544005]
  PRoFILE is a novel feature importance estimation method. We show significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches, both in terms of fidelity and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T05:29:01Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)

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.