arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2508.01388

An Appraisal-Based Approach to Human-Centred Explanations

Abstract

Explainability remains a critical challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly in high stakes domains such as healthcare, finance, and decision support, where users must understand and trust automated reasoning. Traditional explainability methods such as feature importance and post-hoc justifications often fail to capture the cognitive processes that underlie human decision making, leading to either too technical or insufficiently meaningful explanations. We propose a novel appraisal based framework inspired by the Component Process Model (CPM) for explainability to address this gap. While CPM has traditionally been applied to emotion research, we use its appraisal component as a cognitive model for generating human aligned explanations. By structuring explanations around key appraisal dimensions such as relevance, implications, coping potential, and normative significance our framework provides context sensitive, cognitively meaningful justifications for AI decisions. This work introduces a new paradigm for generating intuitive, human-centred explanations in AI driven systems by bridging cognitive science and explainable AI.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rukshani Somarathna, Madhawa Perera, Tom Gedeon, Matt Adcock. 2025-08-02. An Appraisal-Based Approach to Human-Centred Explanations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01388

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC