The value of explanation in expert systems for auditing: An experimental investigation

Abstract

Providing explanations for recommended actions is one of the most important capabilities of expert systems (ESs). The nature of the auditing domain suggests that ESs designed for audit applications should provide an explanation facility. There is little empirical evidence, however, that explanation facilities are, in fact, useful. This paper investigates the impact of explanations on changes in user beliefs toward ES-generated conclusions. Grounded on a theoretical model of argument, the study utilized a simulated expert system to provide three alternative types of ES explanations: trace; justification; and strategy. Ten expert and ten novice auditors performing an analytical review task evaluated the outputs of the system in a laboratory setting. The results indicate that explanation facilities can make a system's advice more agreeable and hence acceptable to auditors, and that justification is the most effective type of ES explanation to bring about changes in auditor attitudes toward the system. In addition, the results suggest that auditors at different levels of expertise may value each explanation type differently.