# Can Conversational XAI Improve User Performance? An Experimental Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20439 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20439/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [TalkToModel: Explaining Machine Learning Models with Interactive Natural Language Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04154/) (2022)
- [Explainable AI is Dead, Long Live Explainable AI! Hypothesis-driven decision support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12389/) (2023)
- [ConvXAI: Delivering Heterogeneous AI Explanations via Conversations to Support Human-AI Scientific Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09770/) (2023)
- [Is Conversational XAI All You Need? Human-AI Decision Making With a Conversational XAI Assistant](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17546/) (2025)
- [Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14429/) (2024)
- [Data Science with LLMs and Interpretable Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14474/) (2024)
- [Measuring User Understanding in Dialogue-based XAI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06960/) (2024)
- [Fewer Than 1% of Explainable AI Papers Validate Explainability with Humans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16507/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques aim to provide insights into predictive models and enhance user performance, yet they often fall short of these expectations. Conversational XAI assistants promise to overcome such limitations, but empirical evidence on their impact on objective performance measures remains limited. We propose an experimental design for evaluating explanation assistance through prediction accuracy, model understanding, and error identification. Using an explainable-by-design prediction model, we create conditions where users can outperform the model by identifying and compensating for systematic errors. We compare conversational assistance against Q&A-based assistance to assess which better supports users in working with model explanations. Preliminary results from testing our experimental design show that participants (N=42) in both treatments significantly outperformed the model but reveal no performance differences between assistance types and modest engagement overall. These findings inform refinements for our planned full study, including enhanced engagement interventions and investigation of the mechanisms driving improved predictions.