Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2306.07637

For Better or Worse: The Impact of Counterfactual Explanations' Directionality on User Behavior in xAI

Ulrike Kuhl·André Artelt·Barbara Hammer
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) are a popular approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), highlighting changes to input data necessary for altering a model's output. A CFE can either describe a scenario that is better than the factual state (upward CFE), or a scenario that is worse than the factual state (downward CFE). However, potential benefits and drawbacks of the directionality of CFEs for user behavior in xAI remain unclear. The current user study (N=161) compares the impact of CFE directionality on behavior and experience of participants tasked to extract new knowledge from an automated system based on model predictions and CFEs. Results suggest that upward CFEs provide a significant performance advantage over other forms of counterfactual feedback. Moreover, the study highlights potential benefits of mixed CFEs improving user performance compared to downward CFEs or no explanations. In line with the performance results, users' explicit knowledge of the system is statistically higher after receiving upward CFEs compared to downward comparisons. These findings imply that the alignment between explanation and task at hand, the so-called regulatory fit, may play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of model explanations, informing future research directions in xAI. To ensure reproducible research, the entire code, underlying models and user data of this study is openly available: https://github.com/ukuhl/DirectionalAlienZoo

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ulrike Kuhl, André Artelt, Barbara Hammer. 2023-06-13. For Better or Worse: The Impact of Counterfactual Explanations' Directionality on User Behavior in xAI. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44070-0_14

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗