Improving understanding and trust in AI: How users benefit from interval-based counterfactual explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09573v1
• Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 19:40:30 GMT
• Title: Improving understanding and trust in AI: How users benefit from interval-based counterfactual explanations
• Abstract summary: The aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate how different types of counterfactual explanations affect both model understanding and (demonstrated) trust.<n>Our results clearly show the superiority of interval explanations over other tested explanation types in increasing both model understanding and demonstrated trust in the AI.
• Score: 1.2893576217358407
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Experimental user studies evaluating the effectiveness of different subtypes of post-hoc explanations for black-box models are largely nonexistent. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate how different types of counterfactual explanations, namely single point explanations and interval-based explanations, affect both model understanding and (demonstrated) trust. We conducted an online user study using a within-subjects experimental design, where the experimental arms were (i) no explanation (control), (ii) feature importance scores, (iii) point counterfactual explanations, and (iv) interval counterfactual explanations. Our results clearly show the superiority of interval explanations over other tested explanation types in increasing both model understanding and demonstrated trust in the AI. We could not support findings of some previous studies showing an effect of point counterfactual explanations compared to the control group. Our results further highlight the role individual differences in, for example, cognitive style or personality, in explanation effectiveness.

Related papers

• Self-Rationalization in the Wild: A Large Scale Out-of-Distribution Evaluation on NLI-related tasks [59.47851630504264]
  Free-text explanations are expressive and easy to understand, but many datasets lack annotated explanation data.<n>We fine-tune T5-Large and OLMo-7B models and assess the impact of fine-tuning data quality, the number of fine-tuning samples, and few-shot selection methods.<n>The models are evaluated on 19 diverse OOD datasets across three tasks: natural language inference (NLI), fact-checking, and hallucination detection in abstractive summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T10:01:32Z)
• Exploring the Plausibility of Hate and Counter Speech Detectors with Explainable AI [0.7317046947172644]
  We compare four different explainability approaches, i.e. gradient-based, perturbation-based, attention-based, and prototype-based approaches. Results show that perturbation-based explainability performs best, followed by gradient-based and attention-based explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T10:17:04Z)
• Towards Understanding the Influence of Training Samples on Explanations [5.695152528716705]
  Explainable AI (XAI) is widely used to analyze AI systems' decision-making.<n>When unexpected explanations occur, users may want to understand the training data properties shaping them.<n>Under the umbrella of data valuation, first approaches have been proposed that estimate the influence of data samples on a given model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T07:20:06Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• On the Connection between Game-Theoretic Feature Attributions and Counterfactual Explanations [14.552505966070358]
  Two of the most popular explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions and counterfactuals explanations. We shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T17:57:21Z)
• Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors [3.4253416336476246]
  We focus on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T16:04:28Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students? [103.05037537415811]
  We formalize the value of explanations using a student-teacher paradigm that measures the extent to which explanations improve student models in learning. Unlike many prior proposals to evaluate explanations, our approach cannot be easily gamed, enabling principled, scalable, and automatic evaluation of attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T23:40:21Z)

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.