From Interpretability Methods to Interpretable Models

Explainable AI (XAI) methods are usually evaluated for technical properties such as faithfulness and robustness. In high-stakes application domains, experts also need to check model predictions against established knowledge. Different explanation methods often disagree, and this disagreement is hard to see when each method is inspected separately. We propose XALIGN, a visual analytics workflow and interface that shows rule-based explanations and several feature attribution methods (TreeSHAP, KernelSHAP, and LIME) side by side for the same Random Forest model. Agreements and contradictions between the methods become visible signals that users can explore and compare with domain knowledge. We apply XALIGN in two case studies: the German Credit dataset and a meteorological dataset, in which events derived from ICON model output and Cloudnet observations are classified. In both, the views reveal discrepancies between the rule-based explanation and the attribution methods that a single method would not show. In an expert evaluation with three specialists, participants found XALIGN useful for identifying influential features and for avoiding over-trust in predictions. Linking rules to attributions was harder for the participant without an XAI background.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods reveal which features influence model predictions, yet provide limited means for practitioners to act on these explanations. Activation steering of components identified via XAI offers a path toward actionable explanations, although its practical utility remains understudied. We introduce an interactive workflow combining SAE-based attribution with activation steering for instance-level analysis of concept usage in vision models, implemented as a web-based tool. Based on this workflow, we conduct semi-structured expert interviews (N=8) with debugging tasks on CLIP to investigate how practitioners reason about, trust, and apply activation steering. We find that steering enables a shift from inspection to intervention-based hypothesis testing (8/8 participants), with most grounding trust in observed model responses rather than explanation plausibility alone (6/8). Participants adopted systematic debugging strategies dominated by component suppression (7/8) and highlighted risks including ripple effects and limited generalization of instance-level corrections. Overall, activation steering renders interpretability more actionable while raising important considerations for safe and effective use.

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.