Predictive models used in Decision Support Systems (DSS) are often requested to explain the reasoning to users. Explanations of instances consist of two parts; the predicted label with an associated certainty and a set of weights, one per feature, describing how each feature contributes to the prediction for the particular instance. In techniques like Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), the probability estimate from the underlying model is used as a measurement of certainty; consequently, the feature weights represent how each feature contributes to the probability estimate. It is, however, well-known that probability estimates from classifiers are often poorly calibrated, i.e., the probability estimates do not correspond to the actual probabilities of being correct. With this in mind, explanations from techniques like LIME risk becoming misleading since the feature weights will only describe how each feature contributes to the possibly inaccurate probability estimate. This paper investigates the impact of calibrating predictive models before applying LIME. The study includes 25 benchmark data sets, using Random forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting (xGBoost) as learners and Venn-Abers and Platt scaling as calibration methods. Results from the study show that explanations of better calibrated models are themselves better calibrated, with ECE and log loss for the explanations after calibration becoming more conformed to the model ECE and log loss. The conclusion is that calibration makes the models and the explanations better by accurately representing reality.

The evaluation of explanation methods has become a significant issue in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) due to the recent surge of opaque AI models in decision support systems (DSS). Explanations are essential for bias detection and control of uncertainty since most accurate AI models are opaque with low transparency and comprehensibility. There are numerous 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.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.

No abstract