Can Conversational XAI Improve User Performance? An Experimental Study

As AI assistants serve millions of users daily, evaluating user experience (UX) beyond general model capability has become increasingly important. We present UXBench, the first user-centric benchmark grounded in real user feedback signals for evaluating preference alignment and dialogue generation. The benchmark consists of three interconnected tasks, UX Judge, UX Eval, and UX Recovery, with 7,400 test instances extracted from over 70K interaction logs of a mainstream Chinese AI assistant. The dataset closely reflects real user distributions, covering 8 scenarios, 83 domains, and diverse failure patterns that pose severe challenges. Extensive experiments on 26 frontier language models provide novel insights into how well models perceive user experience and how improvements in model capability contribute to better dialogue engagement. Through comprehensive analysis of model behavior and performance gaps, we show that user feedback prediction is a learnable capability, where a reward model trained from in-the-wild feedback signals can achieve well-calibrated accuracy. We further document the systematic biases of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation protocols and compare typical response strategies that directly affect user experience. UXBench establishes a new evaluation landscape and calls for greater attention to tailored UX optimization, contributing to a user-centric scaling law that shapes the success of AI assistants.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.

Energy consumption forecasting relies on increasingly complex machine learning (ML) models, such as Genetic Programming-based symbolic regressors, whose predictions can be difficult for facility managers and building operators to interpret. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques address this opacity, but traditional XAI dashboards require substantial technical expertise and provide limited flexibility for dynamic, context-aware inquiry. Conversational XAI systems offer a promising alternative; however, previous approaches, such as TalkToModel, were constrained by rigid custom grammars and achieved only 76.8% intent-parsing accuracy. This paper introduces the Explainability Assistant, an open-source conversational XAI system that leverages the function-calling capabilities of modern Large Language Models (LLMs) to overcome these limitations. The system achieves 94% intent-parsing accuracy, supports flexible natural language interaction, and adapts to different ML problem types without task-specific fine-tuning. We present the system's architecture and report results from a comparative evaluation conducted with energy domain specialists, contrasting the Explainability Assistant with a traditional XAI dashboard. The evaluation suggests improved usability and consistent task accuracy, with all experts unanimously preferring the conversational interface for practical use.