When Machine Learning Gets Personal: Evaluating Prediction and Explanation
Louisa Cornelis, Guillermo Bern\'ardez, Haewon Jeong, Nina Miolane

TL;DR
This paper introduces a framework to evaluate how personalization in machine learning models affects both prediction accuracy and explanation clarity, revealing that these impacts can diverge and emphasizing the need for joint assessment.
Contribution
It provides a unified framework to quantify personalization effects on prediction and explanation, including a hypothesis test and bounds on detectability, with practical insights for real-world datasets.
Findings
Personalization can improve or worsen explainability independently of prediction accuracy.
A finite-sample lower bound on hypothesis test error depends on dataset characteristics.
Some effects of personalization are fundamentally untestable due to dataset limitations.
Abstract
In high-stakes domains like healthcare, users often expect that sharing personal information with machine learning systems will yield tangible benefits, such as more accurate diagnoses and clearer explanations of contributing factors. However, the validity of this assumption remains largely unexplored. We propose a unified framework to quantify how personalizing a model influences both prediction and explanation. We show that its impacts on prediction and explanation can diverge: a model may become more or less explainable even when prediction is unchanged. For practical settings, we study a standard hypothesis test for detecting personalization effects on demographic groups. We derive a finite-sample lower bound on its probability of error as a function of group sizes, number of personal attributes, and desired benefit from personalization. This provides actionable insights, such as…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
I am not really an expert in this field so just offering my best evaluation here. The paper is well written and provides important insights on the personalization and explainability. The sections on their relationship are well-thought and the theoretical aspects are sound.
I am not familiar with the relevant literature but the paper is quite original and contains insightful theories.
- Paper is well written and clear for the most part - Figure 3 and example scenario in Section 6 may be helpful for practitioners who might use the framework
**Weak Problem Statement** There are two facets here: 1. Does this actually occur in practice? 2. If yes, what are the ramifications? The authors don't really address these questions. I'd imagine the most salient case here is when we see a benefit in predictive accuracy but not in explainability (which kind of seems to be the case in Table 2?). For example, Monteiro Paes et al. (2022), demonstrate that personalisation may lead to harm on the second page (Table 1). Even still, we need to **infe
* XAI is a hot topic with many open questions and investigating personalization and faithfulness is an interesting angle * The paper aims at a strong mathematical underpinning paired with real-world examples
* The paper should early on state that they rely on importance scores, which covers only a subset of XAI methods though arguably the most important one (as the authors claim). Also the emphasis is on tabular data, which is a further narrowing down. Both should be clear from the abstract. * The setting is not fully clear. On the one hand, the title should contain fairness rather than prediction (pointing towards overall prediction accuracy) as fairness seems to be the focus and not prediction ac
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEthics and Social Impacts of AI
