Dienst van SURF
© 2025 SURF
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to provide insights into the inner workings and the outputs of AI systems. Recently, there’s been growing recognition that explainability is inherently human-centric, tied to how people perceive explanations. Despite this, there is no consensus in the research community on whether user evaluation is crucial in XAI, and if so, what exactly needs to be evaluated and how. This systematic literature review addresses this gap by providing a detailed overview of the current state of affairs in human-centered XAI evaluation. We reviewed 73 papers across various domains where XAI was evaluated with users. These studies assessed what makes an explanation “good” from a user’s perspective, i.e., what makes an explanation meaningful to a user of an AI system. We identified 30 components of meaningful explanations that were evaluated in the reviewed papers and categorized them into a taxonomy of human-centered XAI evaluation, based on: (a) the contextualized quality of the explanation, (b) the contribution of the explanation to human-AI interaction, and (c) the contribution of the explanation to human- AI performance. Our analysis also revealed a lack of standardization in the methodologies applied in XAI user studies, with only 19 of the 73 papers applying an evaluation framework used by at least one other study in the sample. These inconsistencies hinder cross-study comparisons and broader insights. Our findings contribute to understanding what makes explanations meaningful to users and how to measure this, guiding the XAI community toward a more unified approach in human-centered explainability.
MULTIFILE
The increasing use of AI in industry and society not only expects but demands that we build human-centred competencies into our AI education programmes. The computing education community needs to adapt, and while the adoption of standalone ethics modules into AI programmes or the inclusion of ethical content into traditional applied AI modules is progressing, it is not enough. To foster student competencies to create AI innovations that respect and support the protection of individual rights and society, a novel ground-up approach is needed. This panel presents on one such approach, the development of a Human-Centred AI Masters (HCAIM) as well as the insights and lessons learned from the process. In particular, we discuss the design decisions that have led to the multi-institutional master’s programme. Moreover, this panel allows for discussion on pedagogical and methodological approaches, content knowledge areas and the delivery of such a novel programme, along with challenges faced, to inform and learn from other educators that are considering developing such programmes.
For people with early-dementia (PwD), it can be challenging to remember to eat and drink regularly and maintain a healthy independent living. Existing intelligent home technologies primarily focus on activity recognition but lack adaptive support. This research addresses this gap by developing an AI system inspired by the Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention (JITAI) concept. It adapts to individual behaviors and provides personalized interventions within the home environment, reminding and encouraging PwD to manage their eating and drinking routines. Considering the cognitive impairment of PwD, we design a human-centered AI system based on healthcare theories and caregivers’ insights. It employs reinforcement learning (RL) techniques to deliver personalized interventions. To avoid overwhelming interaction with PwD, we develop an RL-based simulation protocol. This allows us to evaluate different RL algorithms in various simulation scenarios, not only finding the most effective and efficient approach but also validating the robustness of our system before implementation in real-world human experiments. The simulation experimental results demonstrate the promising potential of the adaptive RL for building a human-centered AI system with perceived expressions of empathy to improve dementia care. To further evaluate the system, we plan to conduct real-world user studies.