We Need Explanation Cards to Connect Explanation Algorithms to the Real World
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 51 of its 89 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jun 2026.
Builds on
51 of 89 references.
References · 51
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
- 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
- 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 328
- 2018Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensemblescited by 285
- 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
- 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 216
38 more
- 2019Explainable Machine Learning in Deploymentcited by 211
- 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
- 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 188
- 2020Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Reviewcited by 174
- 2019Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causal problemcited by 167
- 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 159
- 2020Debugging Tests for Model Explanationscited by 147
- 2020True to the Model or True to the Data?cited by 126
- 2021Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiencescited by 123
- 2021Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulatedcited by 113
- 2020Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIMEcited by 89
- 2020Shapley explainability on the data manifoldcited by 88
- 2020General Pitfalls of Model-Agnostic Interpretation Methods for Machine Learning Modelscited by 75
- 2022From Shapley Values to Generalized Additive Models and backcited by 60
- 2021On the Adversarial Robustness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 56
- 2022Framework for Evaluating Faithfulness of Local Explanationscited by 55
- 2022Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contextscited by 53
- 2023SHAP-IQ: Unified Approximation of any-order Shapley Interactionscited by 51
- 2021Evaluating Robustness of Counterfactual Explanationscited by 41
- 2023Don't trust your eyes: on the (un)reliability of feature visualizationscited by 32
- 2023The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainabilitycited by 31
- 2019Issues with post-hoc counterfactual explanations: a discussioncited by 30
- 2024From Explainable to Interactive AI: A Literature Review on Current Trends in Human-AI Interactioncited by 26
- 2023Dear XAI Community, We Need to Talk! Fundamental Misconceptions in Current XAI Researchcited by 22
- 2018Automated Test Generation to Detect Individual Discrimination in AI Modelscited by 21
- 2022Scientific Inference With Interpretable Machine Learning: Analyzing Models to Learn About Real-World Phenomenacited by 21
- 2022Attribution-based Explanations that Provide Recourse Cannot be Robustcited by 20
- 2022Improvement-Focused Causal Recourse (ICR)cited by 20
- 2023Decomposing Global Feature Effects Based on Feature Interactionscited by 17
- 2023Promoting Counterfactual Robustness through Diversitycited by 17
- 2023A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AIcited by 16
- 2022Saliency Cards: A Framework to Characterize and Compare Saliency Methodscited by 11
- 2023Manifold Restricted Interventional Shapley Valuescited by 9
- 2025Performative Validity of Recourse Explanationscited by 8
- 2024Trust Regions for Explanations via Black-Box Probabilistic Certificationcited by 4
- 2025SHAP-based Explanations are Sensitive to Feature Representationcited by 4
- 2024Position: Do Not Explain Vision Models Without Contextcited by 2
- 2025Informative Post-Hoc Explanations Only Exist for Simple Functionscited by 2
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.