In this article, we introduce and evaluate a tool for researchers and practitioners to assess the actionability of information provided to users to support algorithmic recourse. While there are clear benefits of recourse from the user’s perspective, the notion of actionability in explainable AI research remains vague, and claims of ‘actionable’ explainability techniques are based on researchers’ intuitions. Inspired by definitions and instruments for assessing actionability in other domains, we construct a seven-item tool and investigate its effectiveness through two user studies. We show that the tool discriminates actionability across explanation types and that the distinctions align with human judgments. We illustrate the impact of context on actionability assessments, suggesting that domain-specific tool adaptations may foster more human-centred algorithmic systems. This is a valuable step forward for research and practices into actionable explainability and algorithmic recourse, providing the first clear human-centred tool for assessing actionability in explainable AI.

In this article, we show that explanations of decisions made by machine learning systems can be improved by not only explaining why a decision was made but also explaining how an individual could obtain their desired outcome. We formally define the concept of directive explanations (those that offer specific actions an individual could take to achieve their desired outcome), introduce two forms of directive explanations (directive-specific and directive-generic), and describe how these can be generated computationally. We investigate people’s preference for and perception toward directive explanations through two online studies, one quantitative and the other qualitative, each covering two domains (the credit scoring domain and the employee satisfaction domain). We find a significant preference for both forms of directive explanations compared to non-directive counterfactual explanations. However, we also find that preferences are affected by many aspects, including individual preferences and social factors. We conclude that deciding what type of explanation to provide requires information about the recipients and other contextual information. This reinforces the need for a human-centered and context-specific approach to explainable AI.

In autonomous multiagent or multirobotic systems, the ability to quickly and accurately respond to threats and uncertainties is important for both mission outcomes and survivability. Such systems are never truly autonomous, often operating as part of a human-agent team. Artificial intelligent agents (IAs) have been proposed as tools to help manage such teams; e.g., proposing potential courses of action to human operators. However, they are often underutilized due to a lack of trust. Designing transparent agents, who can convey at least some information regarding their internal reasoning processes, is considered an effective method of increasing trust. How people interact with such transparency information to gain situation awareness while avoiding information overload is currently an unexplored topic. In this article, we go part way to answering this question, by investigating two forms of transparency: sequential transparency, which requires people to step through the IA's explanation in a fixed order; and demand-driven transparency, which allows people to request information as needed. In an experiment using a multivehicle simulation, our results show that demand-driven interaction improves the operators' trust in the system while maintaining, and at times improving, performance and usability.