Do Metrics for Counterfactual Explanations Align with User Perception?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15607v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 17:56:54 GMT
• Title: Do Metrics for Counterfactual Explanations Align with User Perception?
• Abstract summary: We compare algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments of explanation quality.<n>Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent.<n>Our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users.
• Score: 3.919854840656461
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.

Related papers

• Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics [9.506308841971228]
  The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings.<n>A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information.<n>We propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, sensitivity, and manipulation robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T18:10:01Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluators: Metrics for Compositional Text-to-Image Generation [13.460909458745379]
  We present a broad study of widely used metrics for compositional text-image evaluation.<n>Our analysis goes beyond simple correlation, examining their behavior across diverse compositional challenges.<n>Results show that no single metric performs consistently across tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:31:09Z)
• The illusion of a perfect metric: Why evaluating AI's words is harder than it looks [0.0]
  Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI.<n>Human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, but it is expensive and lacks scalability.<n>No single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T13:22:41Z)
• Ranking evaluation metrics from a group-theoretic perspective [5.333192842860574]
  We show instances resulting in inconsistent evaluations, sources of potential mistrust in commonly used metrics. Our analysis sheds light on ranking evaluation metrics, highlighting that inconsistent evaluations should not be seen as a source of mistrust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T09:06:58Z)
• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Causal Fair Metric: Bridging Causality, Individual Fairness, and Adversarial Robustness [7.246701762489971]
  Adversarial perturbation, used to identify vulnerabilities in models, and individual fairness, aiming for equitable treatment of similar individuals, both depend on metrics to generate comparable input data instances. Previous attempts to define such joint metrics often lack general assumptions about data or structural causal models and were unable to reflect counterfactual proximity. This paper introduces a causal fair metric formulated based on causal structures encompassing sensitive attributes and protected causal perturbation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T09:53:42Z)
• The Glass Ceiling of Automatic Evaluation in Natural Language Generation [60.59732704936083]
  We take a step back and analyze recent progress by comparing the body of existing automatic metrics and human metrics. Our extensive statistical analysis reveals surprising findings: automatic metrics -- old and new -- are much more similar to each other than to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T01:13:46Z)
• REAM$\sharp$: An Enhancement Approach to Reference-based Evaluation Metrics for Open-domain Dialog Generation [63.46331073232526]
  We present an enhancement approach to Reference-based EvAluation Metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. A prediction model is designed to estimate the reliability of the given reference set. We show how its predicted results can be helpful to augment the reference set, and thus improve the reliability of the metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-30T10:04:13Z)
• OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metrics [53.779709191191685]
  We propose OpenMEVA, a benchmark for evaluating open-ended story generation metrics. OpenMEVA provides a comprehensive test suite to assess the capabilities of metrics. We observe that existing metrics have poor correlation with human judgments, fail to recognize discourse-level incoherence, and lack inferential knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-19T04:45:07Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics [64.88815792555451]
  We show that current methods for judging metrics are highly sensitive to the translations used for assessment. We develop a method for thresholding performance improvement under an automatic metric against human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T09:12:53Z)

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.