Use-Case-Grounded Simulations for Explanation Evaluation
Valerie Chen, Nari Johnson, Nicholay Topin, Gregory Plumb, Ameet Talwalkar
摘要
A growing body of research runs human subject evaluations to study whether providing users with explanations of machine learning models can help them with practical real-world use cases. However, running user studies is challenging and costly, and consequently each study typically only evaluates a limited number of different settings, e.g., studies often only evaluate a few arbitrarily selected explanation methods. To address these challenges and aid user study design, we introduce Use-Case-Grounded Simulated Evaluations (SimEvals). SimEvals involve training algorithmic agents that take as input the information content (such as model explanations) that would be presented to each participant in a human subject study, to predict answers to the use case of interest. The algorithmic agent's test set accuracy provides a measure of the predictiveness of the information content for the downstream use case. We run a comprehensive evaluation on three real-world use cases (forward simulation, model debugging, and counterfactual reasoning) to demonstrate that Simevals can effectively identify which explanation methods will help humans for each use case. These results provide evidence that SimEvals can be used to efficiently screen an important set of user study design decisions, e.g. selecting which explanations should be presented to the user, before running a potentially costly user study.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了最后一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper4
- Utilizing Human Behavior Modeling to Manipulate Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: The Good, the Bad, and the ScaryZhuoyan Li, Ming YinNeurIPS 2024 · 被引用 15 次
- Sample based Explanations via Generalized RepresentersChe-Ping Tsai, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Pradeep RavikumarNeurIPS 2023 · 被引用 13 次
- Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-text RationalesBrihi Joshi, Ziyi Liu, Sahana Ramnath, Aaron Chan 等ACL 2023 · 被引用 6 次
- Explanations are a Means to an End: Decision Theoretic Explanation EvaluationZiyang Guo, Berk Ustun, Jessica HullmanICML 2026
它引用的顶会 Paper8
- Manipulating and Measuring Model InterpretabilityForough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan 等CHI 2021 · 被引用 663 次
- Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine LearningHarmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana 等CHI 2020 · 被引用 541 次
- Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measuresI. Elizabeth Kumar, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Carlos Scheidegger, Sorelle A. FriedlerICML 2020 · 被引用 458 次
- Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?Peter Hase, Mohit BansalACL 2020 · 被引用 216 次
- Debugging Tests for Model ExplanationsJulius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Ilaria Liccardi, Been KimNeurIPS 2020 · 被引用 209 次
相关 Paper
- ConSim: Measuring Concept-Based Explanations' Effectiveness with Automated SimulatabilityAntonin Poché, Alon Jacovi, Agustin Martin Picard, Victor Boutin 等ACL 2025 · 被引用 8 次
- Amortised Experimental Design and Parameter Estimation for User Models of PointingAntti Keurulainen, Isak Rafael Westerlund, Oskar Keurulainen, Andrew HowesCHI 2023 · 被引用 7 次
- Towards Unifying Evaluation of Counterfactual Explanations: Leveraging Large Language Models for Human-Centric AssessmentsMarharyta Domnich, Julius Välja, Rasmus Moorits Veski, Giacomo Magnifico 等AAAI 2025 · 被引用 11 次
- Do Models Explain Themselves? Counterfactual Simulatability of Natural Language ExplanationsYanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Narutatsu Ri, Chen Zhao 等ICML 2024 · 被引用 90 次
- "Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for HumansVivian Lai, Han Liu, Chenhao TanCHI 2020 · 被引用 113 次
