Conversational versus Dashboard Explainable AI for UAV Intrusion Detection: An Empirical Study of Operator Trust and Reliance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) have demonstrated superior performance in securing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) networks. However, the 'black-box' nature of these models, combined with the high dimensionality of multimodal cyber-physical data, poses significant interpretability challenges. Static visualization dashboards may struggle to present complex relationships among multimodal cyber-physical features in a form that is easy for operators to inspect and interpret. To address this, we propose a Conversational XAI interface powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to facilitate on-demand investigation. In a controlled experiment with participants, we systematically evaluated the impact of this conversational interface versus a traditional XAI Dashboard on operator understanding, trust, and reliance during post-incident auditing tasks. Our results suggest that the conversational interface was perceived as more useful than the dashboard, potentially because it helped participants access and synthesize relevant information more easily. However, this benefit was accompanied by a lower level of appropriate self-reliance, indicating a potential risk of over-reliance. One possible interpretation is that the natural-language responses made the AI advice easier to accept, which may have reduced participants' tendency to verify the underlying evidence when the IDS was incorrect. These findings point to a potential trade-off in human-AI collaboration for UAV intrusion auditing: interaction mechanisms that improve perceived usability may also increase the risk of inappropriate reliance. We conclude by discussing design implications for future XAI systems that balance seamless interaction with cognitive forcing functions to foster appropriate reliance.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.
Builds on
18 of 30 references.
References · 18
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 302
- 2020Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 253
- 2019The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 207
- 2020A Survey on Conversational Recommender Systemscited by 143
- 2020Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainabilitycited by 125
- 2022Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Makingcited by 111
- 2022Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanationscited by 92
- 2020Human-centered Explainable AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approachcited by 90
- 2022Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanationscited by 85
- 2022TalkToModel: Explaining Machine Learning Models with Interactive Natural Language Conversationscited by 66
6 more
- 2023ConvXAI: Delivering Heterogeneous AI Explanations via Conversations to Support Human-AI Scientific Writingcited by 31
- 2022Should I Follow AI-based Advice? Measuring Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 28
- 2022OmniXAI: A Library for Explainable AIcited by 21
- 2022Diagnosing AI Explanation Methods with Folk Concepts of Behaviorcited by 15
- 2023On the Impact of Explanations on Understanding of Algorithmic Decision-Makingcited by 9
- 2024To Err Is AI! Debugging as an Intervention to Facilitate Appropriate Reliance on AI Systemscited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.