Explainable AI (XAI) presents useful tools to facilitate transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning systems. However, current evaluations of system explainability often rely heavily on subjective user surveys, which may not adequately capture the effectiveness of explanations. This paper critiques the overreliance on user satisfaction metrics and explores whether these can differentiate between meaningful (actionable) and vacuous (placebic) explanations. In experiments involving optimal Social Security filing age selection tasks, participants used one of three protocols: no explanations, placebic explanations, and actionable explanations. Participants who received actionable explanations significantly outperformed the other groups in objective measures of their mental model, but users rated placebic and actionable explanations as equally satisfying. This suggests that subjective surveys alone fail to capture whether explanations truly support users in building useful domain understanding. We propose that future evaluations of agent explanation capabilities should integrate objective task performance metrics alongside subjective assessments to more accurately measure explanation quality.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to create transparency in modern AI models by offering explanations of the models to human users. There are many ways in which researchers have attempted to evaluate the quality of these XAI models, such as user studies or proposed objective metrics like "fidelity". However, these current XAI evaluation techniques are ad hoc at best and not generalizable. Thus, most studies done within this field conduct simple user surveys to analyze the difference between no explanations and those generated by their proposed solution. We do not find this to provide adequate evidence that the explanations generated are of good quality since we believe any kind of explanation will be "better" in most metrics when compared to none at all. Thus, our study looks to highlight this pitfall: most explanations, regardless of quality or correctness, will increase user satisfaction. We also propose that emphasis should be placed on actionable explanations. We demonstrate the validity of both of our claims using an agent assistant to teach chess concepts to users. The results of this chapter will act as a call to action in the field of XAI for more comprehensive evaluation techniques for future research in order to prove explanation quality beyond user satisfaction. Additionally, we present an analysis of the scenarios in which placebic or actionable explanations would be most useful.

In industry, Bayesian optimization (BO) is widely applied in the human-AI collaborative parameter tuning of cyber-physical systems. However, BO's solutions may deviate from human experts' actual goal due to approximation errors and simplified objectives, requiring subsequent tuning. The black-box nature of BO limits the collaborative tuning process because the expert does not trust the BO recommendations. Current explainable AI (XAI) methods are not tailored for optimization and thus fall short of addressing this gap. To bridge this gap, we propose TNTRules (TUNE-NOTUNE Rules), a post-hoc, rule-based explainability method that produces high quality explanations through multiobjective optimization. Our evaluation of benchmark optimization problems and real-world hyperparameter optimization tasks demonstrates TNTRules' superiority over state-of-the-art XAI methods in generating high quality explanations. This work contributes to the intersection of BO and XAI, providing interpretable optimization techniques for real-world applications.

As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications, policymakers have suggested tighter data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). One key principle is the "right to be forgotten" which gives users the right to have their data deleted. Another key principle is the right to an actionable explanation, also known as algorithmic recourse, allowing users to reverse unfavorable decisions. To date it is unknown whether these two principles can be operationalized simultaneously. Therefore, we introduce and study the problem of recourse invalidation in the context of data deletion requests. More specifically, we theoretically and empirically analyze the behavior of popular state-of-the-art algorithms and demonstrate that the recourses generated by these algorithms are likely to be invalidated if a small number of data deletion requests (e.g., 1 or 2) warrant updates of the predictive model.