Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Directive Explanations for Actionable Explainability in Machine Learning Applications

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 2102.02671 v1 pith:P3SPDQAD submitted 2021-02-03 cs.LG cs.AI

Directive Explanations for Actionable Explainability in Machine Learning Applications

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords explanationsdirectiveindividualdesiredlearningmachinepeopleachieve
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the prospects of using directive explanations to assist people in achieving recourse of machine learning decisions. Directive explanations list which specific actions an individual needs to take to achieve their desired outcome. If a machine learning model makes a decision that is detrimental to an individual (e.g. denying a loan application), then it needs to both explain why it made that decision and also explain how the individual could obtain their desired outcome (if possible). At present, this is often done using counterfactual explanations, but such explanations generally do not tell individuals how to act. We assert that counterfactual explanations can be improved by explicitly providing people with actions they could use to achieve their desired goal. This paper makes two contributions. First, we present the results of an online study investigating people's perception of directive explanations. Second, we propose a conceptual model to generate such explanations. Our online study showed a significant preference for directive explanations ($p<0.001$). However, the participants' preferred explanation type was affected by multiple factors, such as individual preferences, social factors, and the feasibility of the directives. Our findings highlight the need for a human-centred and context-specific approach for creating directive explanations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evaluating Actionability in Explainable AI

    cs.HC 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    From 14 interviews in medicine and education, the authors derive a catalog mapping 12 information categories to 60 user actions across three action dimensions.