# Do Metrics for Counterfactual Explanations Align with User Perception?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15607 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.15607/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

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

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.02584/) (2019)
- [To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.11783/) (2018)
- [Features of Explainability: How users understand counterfactual and causal explanations for categorical and continuous features in XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.10152/) (2022)
- [Privacy Assessment on Reconstructed Images: Are Existing Evaluation Metrics Faithful to Human Perception?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13038/) (2023)
- [Keep Your Friends Close and Your Counterfactuals Closer: Improved Learning From Closest Rather Than Plausible Counterfactual Explanations in an Abstract Setting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05515/) (2022)
- [Predicting Satisfaction of Counterfactual Explanations from Human Ratings of Explanatory Qualities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13899/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainability is widely regarded as essential for trustworthy artificial intelligence systems. However, the metrics commonly used to evaluate counterfactual explanations are algorithmic evaluation metrics that are rarely validated against human judgments of explanation quality. This raises the question of whether such metrics meaningfully reflect user perceptions. We address this question through an empirical study that directly compares algorithmic evaluation metrics with human judgments across three datasets. Participants rated counterfactual explanations along multiple dimensions of perceived quality, which we relate to a comprehensive set of standard counterfactual metrics. We analyze both individual relationships and the extent to which combinations of metrics can predict human assessments. Our results show that correlations between algorithmic metrics and human ratings are generally weak and strongly dataset-dependent. Moreover, increasing the number of metrics used in predictive models does not lead to reliable improvements, indicating structural limitations in how current metrics capture criteria relevant for humans. Overall, our findings suggest that widely used counterfactual evaluation metrics fail to reflect key aspects of explanation quality as perceived by users, underscoring the need for more human-centered approaches to evaluating explainable artificial intelligence.