Leveraging Mental Models for Human-Centered Explanations: A Systematic Design Approach Illustrated by Explainable Fake Review Identification

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.

Existing human-centred XAI research predominantly evaluates explanations after they have been generated. However, this fails to provide actionable insights into improving accessibility. This study incorporates human-based feature understandability into feature selection to improve the generation of human-centred explanations. Natural language explanations for machine learning models trained on tabular data often cite influential features in the input data to explain a given decision. As a consequence, users' ability to understand the produced explanation hinges on their understanding of the cited features. To quantify this natural-language feature understandability, Rossberg et al. proposed the Feature Understandability Scale, which assigns numerical `understandability scores' to features based on user feedback. To evaluate the degree to which these scores can improve machine learning explanation quality, this study collects understandability scores across two datasets, proposes an understandability-aware feature selection algorithm to select features that are both understandable and informative, and trains a random forest based on these feature subsets. The SHAP-based explanations generated by this model are evaluated using user feedback, and changes in explanation quality are assessed. The individual evaluation of the explanations showed that while the understandability-based explanations scored higher on average, the difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, the comparative evaluation found that participants preferred these explanations significantly more frequently than expected at the chance level. It is concluded that the integration of understandability can yield more understandable explanations at minimal cost to classification performance, although changes to quality require elucidation in larger cohorts.

Evaluating the quality of explanations produced by explainable AI (XAI) methods remains challenging because existing approaches often rely on subjective human judgment, limiting reproducibility, scalability, and comparability between studies. We examine whether LLMs can serve as a reproducible and scalable mechanism to make comparative assessments of the quality of XAI explanations. We introduce XAI-Arena, an LLM-as-a-judge framework for scalable, reproducible, multidimensional, and stakeholder-sensitive evaluation of XAI explanation quality. XAI-Arena then allows us to compare XAI explanations along various dimensions, namely, perceived simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability. We then benchmark XAI explanation methods across various datasets, machine learning models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive association between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho=.693, p<.001). Together, LLM-based evaluations can capture systematic differences in XAI explanation quality and provide a scalable and reproducible framework for comparative assessment of XAI explanations.