On the Definition of Appropriate Trust and the Tools that Come with it

Evaluating the efficiency of human-AI interactions is challenging, including subjective and objective quality aspects. With the focus on the human experience of the explanations, evaluations of explanation methods have become mostly subjective, making comparative evaluations almost impossible and highly linked to the individual user. However, it is commonly agreed that one aspect of explanation quality is how effectively the user can detect if the predictions are trustworthy and correct, i.e., if the explanations can increase the user's appropriate trust in the model. This paper starts with the definitions of appropriate trust from the literature. It compares the definitions with model performance evaluation, showing the strong similarities between appropriate trust and model performance evaluation. The paper's main contribution is a novel approach to evaluating appropriate trust by taking advantage of the likenesses between definitions. The paper offers several straightforward evaluation methods for different aspects of user performance, including suggesting a method for measuring uncertainty and appropriate trust in regression.

Calibrated Explanations for Regression

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often an integral part of modern decision support systems (DSSs). The best-performing predictive models used in AI-based DSSs lack transparency. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to create AI systems that can explain their rationale to human users. Local explanations in XAI can provide information about the causes of individual predictions in terms of feature importance. However, a critical drawback of existing local explanation methods is their inability to quantify the uncertainty associated with a feature's importance. This paper introduces an extension of a feature importance explanation method, Calibrated Explanations (CE), previously only supporting classification, with support for standard regression and probabilistic regression, i.e., the probability that the target is above an arbitrary threshold. The extension for regression keeps all the benefits of CE, such as calibration of the prediction from the underlying model with confidence intervals, uncertainty quantification of feature importance, and allows both factual and counterfactual explanations. CE for standard regression provides fast, reliable, stable, and robust explanations. CE for probabilistic regression provides an entirely new way of creating probabilistic explanations from any ordinary regression model and with a dynamic selection of thresholds. The performance of CE for probabilistic regression regarding stability and speed is comparable to LIME. The method is model agnostic with easily understood conditional rules. An implementation in Python is freely available on GitHub and for installation using pip making the results in this paper easily replicable.

A Meta Survey of Quality Evaluation Criteria in Explanation Methods

Explanation methods and their evaluation have become a significant issue in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) due to the recent surge of opaque AI models in decision support systems (DSS). Since the most accurate AI models are opaque with low transparency and comprehensibility, explanations are essential for bias detection and control of uncertainty. There are a plethora of criteria to choose from when evaluating explanation method quality. However, since existing criteria focus on evaluating single explanation methods, it is not obvious how to compare the quality of different methods. This lack of consensus creates a critical shortage of rigour in the field, although little is written about comparative evaluations of explanation methods. In this paper, we have conducted a semi-systematic meta-survey over fifteen literature surveys covering the evaluation of explainability to identify existing criteria usable for comparative evaluations of explanation methods. The main contribution in the paper is the suggestion to use appropriate trust as a criterion to measure the outcome of the subjective evaluation criteria and consequently make comparative evaluations possible. We also present a model of explanation quality aspects. In the model, criteria with similar definitions are grouped and related to three identified aspects of quality; model, explanation, and user. We also notice four commonly accepted criteria (groups) in the literature, covering all aspects of explanation quality: Performance, appropriate trust, explanation satisfaction, and fidelity. We suggest the model be used as a chart for comparative evaluations to create more generalisable research in explanation quality.