Rules or Weights? Comparing User Understanding of Explainable AI Techniques with the Cognitive XAI-Adaptive Model

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.19620v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:07:16 GMT
• Title: Rules or Weights? Comparing User Understanding of Explainable AI Techniques with the Cognitive XAI-Adaptive Model
• Authors: Louth Bin Rawshan, Zhuoyu Wang, Brian Y Lim,
• Abstract summary: Rules and Weights are popular XAI techniques for explaining AI decisions.<n>It remains unclear how to choose between them, lacking a cognitive framework to compare their interpretability.<n>We propose CoXAM, a Cognitive XAI-Adaptive Model with shared memory representation.
• Score: 8.572512533736312
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Rules and Weights are popular XAI techniques for explaining AI decisions. Yet, it remains unclear how to choose between them, lacking a cognitive framework to compare their interpretability. In an elicitation user study on forward and counterfactual decision tasks, we identified 7 reasoning strategies of interpreting three XAI Schemas - weights, rules, and their hybrid. To analyze their capabilities, we propose CoXAM, a Cognitive XAI-Adaptive Model with shared memory representation to encode instance attributes, linear weights, and decision rules. CoXAM employs computational rationality to choose among reasoning processes based on the trade-off in utility and reasoning time, separately for forward or counterfactual decision tasks. In a validation study, CoXAM demonstrated a stronger alignment with human decision-making compared to baseline machine learning proxy models. The model successfully replicated and explained several key empirical findings, including that counterfactual tasks are inherently harder than forward tasks, decision tree rules are harder to recall and apply than linear weights, and the helpfulness of XAI depends on the application data context, alongside identifying which underlying reasoning strategies were most effective. With CoXAM, we contribute a cognitive basis to accelerate debugging and benchmarking disparate XAI techniques.

Related papers

• KBQA-R1: Reinforcing Large Language Models for Knowledge Base Question Answering [64.62317305868264]
  We present textbfKBQA-R1, a framework that shifts the paradigm from text imitation to interaction optimization via Reinforcement Learning.<n>Treating KBQA as a multi-turn decision process, our model learns to navigate the knowledge base using a list of actions.<n>Experiments on WebQSP, GrailQA, and GraphQuestions demonstrate that KBQA-R1 achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T17:45:42Z)
• Two Experts Are All You Need for Steering Thinking: Reinforcing Cognitive Effort in MoE Reasoning Models Without Additional Training [86.70255651945602]
  We introduce a novel inference-time steering methodology called Reinforcing Cognitive Experts (RICE)<n>RICE aims to improve reasoning performance without additional training or complexs.<n> Empirical evaluations with leading MoE-based LRMs demonstrate noticeable and consistent improvements in reasoning accuracy, cognitive efficiency, and cross-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:59:16Z)
• Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): from inherent explainability to large language models [0.0]
  Explainable AI (XAI) techniques facilitate the explainability or interpretability of machine learning models.<n>This paper details the advancements of explainable AI methods, from inherently interpretable models to modern approaches.<n>We review explainable AI techniques that leverage vision-language model (VLM) frameworks to automate or improve the explainability of other machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-17T06:16:57Z)
• Study on the Helpfulness of Explainable Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  Legal, business, and ethical requirements motivate using effective XAI. We propose to evaluate XAI methods via the user's ability to successfully perform a proxy task. In other words, we address the helpfulness of XAI for human decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T14:03:52Z)
• Explainable AI for Enhancing Efficiency of DL-based Channel Estimation [1.0136215038345013]
  Support of artificial intelligence based decision-making is a key element in future 6G networks.<n>In such applications, using AI as black-box models is risky and challenging.<n>We propose a novel-based XAI-CHEST framework that is oriented toward channel estimation in wireless communications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T16:24:21Z)
• EXACT: Towards a platform for empirically benchmarking Machine Learning model explanation methods [1.6383837447674294]
  This paper brings together various benchmark datasets and novel performance metrics in an initial benchmarking platform. Our datasets incorporate ground truth explanations for class-conditional features. This platform assesses the performance of post-hoc XAI methods in the quality of the explanations they produce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:16:06Z)
• REX: Rapid Exploration and eXploitation for AI Agents [103.68453326880456]
  We propose an enhanced approach for Rapid Exploration and eXploitation for AI Agents called REX. REX introduces an additional layer of rewards and integrates concepts similar to Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) scores, leading to more robust and efficient AI agent performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T04:26:33Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• Connecting Algorithmic Research and Usage Contexts: A Perspective of Contextualized Evaluation for Explainable AI [65.44737844681256]
  A lack of consensus on how to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) hinders the advancement of the field. We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T05:17:33Z)
• Rational Shapley Values [0.0]
  Most popular tools for post-hoc explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are either insensitive to context or difficult to summarize. I introduce emphrational Shapley values, a novel XAI method that synthesizes and extends these seemingly incompatible approaches. I leverage tools from decision theory and causal modeling to formalize and implement a pragmatic approach that resolves a number of known challenges in XAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T15:45:21Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)

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.