REVIEW 1 cited by
Evaluating Explanations Through LLMs: Beyond Traditional User Studies
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
Evaluating Explanations Through LLMs: Beyond Traditional User Studies
read the original abstract
As AI becomes fundamental in sectors like healthcare, explainable AI (XAI) tools are essential for trust and transparency. However, traditional user studies used to evaluate these tools are often costly, time consuming, and difficult to scale. In this paper, we explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to replicate human participants to help streamline XAI evaluation. We reproduce a user study comparing counterfactual and causal explanations, replicating human participants with seven LLMs under various settings. Our results show that (i) LLMs can replicate most conclusions from the original study, (ii) different LLMs yield varying levels of alignment in the results, and (iii) experimental factors such as LLM memory and output variability affect alignment with human responses. These initial findings suggest that LLMs could provide a scalable and cost-effective way to simplify qualitative XAI evaluation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Quality Without Usefulness: LLM-Generated XAI Narratives as Trust Heuristics Rather Than Decision Aids
High-quality LLM explanations for time-series forecasts boost confidence without improving accuracy across five tasks, functioning as trust heuristics rather than decision aids.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.