Evaluating the Quality of Machine Learning Explanations: A Survey on Methods and Metrics

The most successful Machine Learning (ML) systems remain complex black boxes to end-users, and even experts are often unable to understand the rationale behind their decisions. The lack of transparency of such systems can have severe consequences or poor uses of limited valuable resources in medical diagnosis, financial decision-making, and in other high-stake domains. Therefore, the issue of ML explanation has experienced a surge in interest from the research community to application domains. While numerous explanation methods have been explored, there is a need for evaluations to quantify the quality of explanation methods to determine whether and to what extent the offered explainability achieves the defined objective, and compare available explanation methods and suggest the best explanation from the comparison for a specific task. This survey paper presents a comprehensive overview of methods proposed in the current literature for the evaluation of ML explanations. We identify properties of explainability from the review of definitions of explainability. The identified properties of explainability are used as objectives that evaluation metrics should achieve. The survey found that the quantitative metrics for both model-based and example-based explanations are primarily used to evaluate the parsimony/simplicity of interpretability, while the quantitative metrics for attribution-based explanations are primarily used to evaluate the soundness of fidelity of explainability. The survey also demonstrated that subjective measures, such as trust and confidence, have been embraced as the focal point for the human-centered evaluation of explainable systems. The paper concludes that the evaluation of ML explanations is a multidisciplinary research topic. It is also not possible to define an implementation of evaluation metrics, which can be applied to all explanation methods.</jats:p

Fairness and Explanation in AI-Informed Decision Making

AI-assisted decision-making that impacts individuals raises critical questions about transparency and fairness in artificial intelligence (AI). Much research has highlighted the reciprocal relationships between the transparency/explanation and fairness in AI-assisted decision-making. Thus, considering their impact on user trust or perceived fairness simultaneously benefits responsible use of socio-technical AI systems, but currently receives little attention. In this paper, we investigate the effects of AI explanations and fairness on human-AI trust and perceived fairness, respectively, in specific AI-based decision-making scenarios. A user study simulating AI-assisted decision-making in two health insurance and medical treatment decision-making scenarios provided important insights. Due to the global pandemic and restrictions thereof, the user studies were conducted as online surveys. From the participant’s trust perspective, fairness was found to affect user trust only under the condition of a low fairness level, with the low fairness level reducing user trust. However, adding explanations helped users increase their trust in AI-assisted decision-making. From the perspective of perceived fairness, our work found that low levels of introduced fairness decreased users’ perceptions of fairness, while high levels of introduced fairness increased users’ perceptions of fairness. The addition of explanations definitely increased the perception of fairness. Furthermore, we found that application scenarios influenced trust and perceptions of fairness. The results show that the use of AI explanations and fairness statements in AI applications is complex: we need to consider not only the type of explanations and the degree of fairness introduced, but also the scenarios in which AI-assisted decision-making is used.</jats:p