Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Predictability and Comprehensibility in Post-Hoc XAI Methods: A User-Centered Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.11987 v1 pith:GD23N5WK submitted 2023-09-21 cs.LG cs.AIcs.HC

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.HC
keywords comprehensibilityexplanationsmodelusersmethodspost-hocpredictabilityability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Post-hoc explainability methods aim to clarify predictions of black-box machine learning models. However, it is still largely unclear how well users comprehend the provided explanations and whether these increase the users ability to predict the model behavior. We approach this question by conducting a user study to evaluate comprehensibility and predictability in two widely used tools: LIME and SHAP. Moreover, we investigate the effect of counterfactual explanations and misclassifications on users ability to understand and predict the model behavior. We find that the comprehensibility of SHAP is significantly reduced when explanations are provided for samples near a model's decision boundary. Furthermore, we find that counterfactual explanations and misclassifications can significantly increase the users understanding of how a machine learning model is making decisions. Based on our findings, we also derive design recommendations for future post-hoc explainability methods with increased comprehensibility and predictability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do Cognitively Interpretable Reasoning Traces Improve LLM Performance?

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On CoTemp QA, supervised fine-tuning with raw R1 traces gave the best model accuracy while human raters found those traces least interpretable, showing model-useful traces and human-readable traces can diverge.

Pith tools