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
As artificial intelligence (AI) reshapes hiring, organizations increasingly rely on AI-enhanced selection methods such as chatbot-led interviews and algorithmic resume screening. While AI offers efficiency and scalability, concerns persist regarding fairness, transparency, and trust. This qualitative study applies the Artificially Intelligent Device Use Acceptance (AIDUA) model to examine how job applicants perceive and respond to AI-driven hiring. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 15 professionals, the study explores how social influence, anthropomorphism, and performance expectancy shape applicant acceptance, while concerns about transparency and fairness emerge as key barriers. Participants expressed a strong preference for hybrid AI-human hiring models, emphasizing the importance of explainability and human oversight. The study refines the AIDUA model in the recruitment context and offers practical recommendations for organizations seeking to implement AI ethically and effectively in selection processes.
MULTIFILE
From the article: The ethics guidelines put forward by the AI High Level Expert Group (AI-HLEG) present a list of seven key requirements that Human-centered, trustworthy AI systems should meet. These guidelines are useful for the evaluation of AI systems, but can be complemented by applied methods and tools for the development of trustworthy AI systems in practice. In this position paper we propose a framework for translating the AI-HLEG ethics guidelines into the specific context within which an AI system operates. This approach aligns well with a set of Agile principles commonly employed in software engineering. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2659/
DOCUMENT
