Do Metrics for Counterfactual Explanations Align with User Perception?

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent work incorporates additional properties such as sparsity, actionability and plausibility. Despite this progress, fair and systematic evaluation remains challenging. Existing studies often rely on different data splits, predictive models, and evaluation metrics, which limits objective comparison across methods. To fill this gap, we introduce CEL (Counterfactual Explanations Library), a unified library and benchmark for counterfactual explanations designed to support consistent implementation and evaluation. CEL includes 18 datasets of varying size and complexity and provides implementations or reimplementations of 14 widely used counterfactual methods. Using this standardized setup, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative comparison across a variety of methods on datasets that differ in size, number, and types of attributes. The evaluation protocol incorporates multiple complementary metrics capturing validity, coverage, sparsity, proximity, and distributional plausibility, including density- and outlier-based measures to assess the realism of generated counterfactuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates recent counterfactual explanation methods within a unified and reproducible framework. While prior libraries and benchmarking efforts exist in the literature, many are outdated, limited in scope, or lack consistent evaluation protocols. The proposed benchmark aims to improve reproducibility, enable fair comparison, and establish a workbench for the development of future counterfactual explanation methods.

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.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods are commonly evaluated using functional correctness metrics, sometimes termed faithfulness or fidelity, which estimate how closely an explanation reflects the model's reasoning. Higher correctness is assumed to produce better human understanding, but this link has not been tested with controlled levels. We conducted a user study (N=200) that manipulated explanation correctness at four levels (100%, 85%, 70%, 55%) in a synthetic time series classification task where participants could not rely on domain knowledge or visual intuition. Correctness was defined against a known ground truth, not estimated from a trained model. Participants predicted a simulated AI's decisions from feature-attribution-style explanations (forward simulation), and we used their forward simulation accuracy as a proxy for understanding. Correctness affected understanding, but not at every level: forward simulation accuracy dropped at 70% and 55% relative to fully correct explanations, with no further reduction below 70% and no conclusive difference between 85% and 100%. Lower correctness reduced how many participants predicted accurately rather than lowering accuracy uniformly, and even fully correct explanations did not guarantee understanding: forward simulation accuracy was bimodal there, with only a subset of participants well above chance. In exploratory analyses, some participants predicted decisions accurately but described the wrong pattern when asked what the AI used, and self-reported ratings correlated with forward simulation accuracy only when explanations were fully correct. These findings show that not all differences in functional correctness translate to differences in human understanding, highlighting the need to validate functional metrics against human outcomes.