Beyond Satisfaction: From Placebic to Actionable Explanations For Enhanced Understandability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Explainable AI (XAI) presents useful tools to facilitate transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning systems. However, current evaluations of system explainability often rely heavily on subjective user surveys, which may not adequately capture the effectiveness of explanations. This paper critiques the overreliance on user satisfaction metrics and explores whether these can differentiate between meaningful (actionable) and vacuous (placebic) explanations. In experiments involving optimal Social Security filing age selection tasks, participants used one of three protocols: no explanations, placebic explanations, and actionable explanations. Participants who received actionable explanations significantly outperformed the other groups in objective measures of their mental model, but users rated placebic and actionable explanations as equally satisfying. This suggests that subjective surveys alone fail to capture whether explanations truly support users in building useful domain understanding. We propose that future evaluations of agent explanation capabilities should integrate objective task performance metrics alongside subjective assessments to more accurately measure explanation quality. The code for this study can be found at https://github.com/Shymkis/social-security-explainer.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2025.
Builds on
12 of 30 references.
References · 12
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,203
- 2018Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospectscited by 258
- 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 233
- 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 138
- 2021A Comprehensive Taxonomy for Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Survey of Surveys on Methods and Conceptscited by 91
- 2021If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniquescited by 82
- 2021Explainability Pitfalls: Beyond Dark Patterns in Explainable AIcited by 36
- 2021CARE: Coherent Actionable Recourse based on Sound Counterfactual Explanationscited by 17
- 2022Explaining Classifications to Non Experts: An XAI User Study of Post Hoc Explanations for a Classifier When People Lack Expertisecited by 8
- 2024The Drawback of Insight: Detailed Explanations Can Reduce Agreement with XAIcited by 2
- 2024Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysiscited by 2
- 2025Not All Explanations are Created Equal: Investigating the Pitfalls of Current XAI Evaluationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.