Ayala Bloch

Parisa Zehtabi, Alberto Pozanco, Ayala Bloch et al.

In many real-world scenarios, agents are involved in optimization problems. Since most of these scenarios are over-constrained, optimal solutions do not always satisfy all agents. Some agents might be unhappy and ask questions of the form ``Why does solution $S$ not satisfy property $P$?''. We propose CMAoE, a domain-independent approach to obtain contrastive explanations by: (i) generating a new solution $S^\prime$ where property $P$ is enforced, while also minimizing the differences between $S$ and $S^\prime$; and (ii) highlighting the differences between the two solutions, with respect to the features of the objective function of the multi-agent system. Such explanations aim to help agents understanding why the initial solution is better in the context of the multi-agent system than what they expected. We have carried out a computational evaluation that shows that CMAoE can generate contrastive explanations for large multi-agent optimization problems. We have also performed an extensive user study in four different domains that shows that: (i) after being presented with these explanations, humans' satisfaction with the original solution increases; and (ii) the constrastive explanations generated by CMAoE are preferred or equally preferred by humans over the ones generated by state of the art approaches.

Ruth Cohen, Lu Feng, Ayala Bloch et al.

While natural-language explanations from large language models (LLMs) are widely adopted to improve transparency and trust, their impact on objective human-AI team performance remains poorly understood. We identify a Persuasion Paradox: fluent explanations systematically increase user confidence and reliance on AI without reliably improving, and in some cases undermining, task accuracy. Across three controlled human-subject studies spanning abstract visual reasoning (RAVEN matrices) and deductive logical reasoning (LSAT problems), we disentangle the effects of AI predictions and explanations using a multi-stage reveal design and between-subjects comparisons. In visual reasoning, LLM explanations increase confidence but do not improve accuracy beyond the AI prediction alone, and substantially suppress users' ability to recover from model errors. Interfaces exposing model uncertainty via predicted probabilities, as well as a selective automation policy that defers uncertain cases to humans, achieve significantly higher accuracy and error recovery than explanation-based interfaces. In contrast, for language-based logical reasoning tasks, LLM explanations yield the highest accuracy and recovery rates, outperforming both expert-written explanations and probability-based support. This divergence reveals that the effectiveness of narrative explanations is strongly task-dependent and mediated by cognitive modality. Our findings demonstrate that commonly used subjective metrics such as trust, confidence, and perceived clarity are poor predictors of human-AI team performance. Rather than treating explanations as a universal solution, we argue for a shift toward interaction designs that prioritize calibrated reliance and effective error recovery over persuasive fluency.