# The Duet of Representations and How Explanations Exacerbate It

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08379 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08379/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.05030/) (2020)
- [CXPlain: Causal Explanations for Model Interpretation under Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12336/) (2019)
- [What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04417/) (2021)
- [Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01254/) (2022)
- [Explaining Black-Box Algorithms Using Probabilistic Contrastive Counterfactuals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.11972/) (2021)
- [Human-AI Collaboration with Bandit Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.10614/) (2021)
- [Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08705/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

An algorithm effects a causal representation of relations between features and labels in the human's perception. Such a representation might conflict with the human's prior belief. Explanations can direct the human's attention to the conflicting feature and away from other relevant features. This leads to causal overattribution and may adversely affect the human's information processing. In a field experiment we implemented an XGBoost-trained model as a decision-making aid for counselors at a public employment service to predict candidates' risk of long-term unemployment. The treatment group of counselors was also provided with SHAP. The results show that the quality of the human's decision-making is worse when a feature on which the human holds a conflicting prior belief is displayed as part of the explanation.