Rethinking XAI Evaluation: A Human-Centered Audit of Shapley Benchmarks in High-Stakes Settings
Authors: Inês Oliveira e Silva, Sérgio Jesus, Iker Perez, Rita P. Ribeiro, Carlos Soares, Hugo Ferreira, Pedro Bizarro
Organizations: University of Porto, Feedzai · Feedzai · University of Porto
Abstract
Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.
The rapid adoption of deep learning models in high-risk domains has intensified the need for trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). However, objectively evaluating explanation fidelity and aligning XAI metrics with human-centered understanding remain critical open challenges. In this work, we propose a model-agnostic metric, the EPC score, which is an extension of the Explainability-Performance Coefficient (EPC), that quantifies explanation quality by explicitly balancing the trade-off between feature selection sparsity and preserved model performance. Through an empirical validation across tabular, text, and image modalities, we show that the EPC score effectively uncovers operational dependencies among network activations, data dimensionality, and explainer performance. Furthermore, we validate the EPC score against independent human-based explanations, proving that higher EPC scores strongly align with human lexical sentiment judgments and spatial visual annotations.
The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.
The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.