PreprintCited by 56Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Making

Open access
Fok, Raymond, Weld, Daniel S.·2023·arXiv

Abstract

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.07722

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fok, R., & Weld, D. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Corresponding author
Fok, Raymond
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
317-332
ISSN
0738-4602 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400195536
Cited by
54
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3
FWCI
7.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI Magazine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐21‐1‐2707, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
explainable AI, AI explanations, verifiability, human-AI collaboration, interpretability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review