Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users
  Predict Model Behavior?
  Algorithmic approaches to interpreting machine learning models have
proliferated in recent years. We carry out human subject tests that are the
first of their kind to isolate the effect of algorithmic explanations on a key
aspect of model interpretability, simulatability, while avoiding important
confounding experimental factors. A model is simulatable when a person can
predict its behavior on new inputs. Through two kinds of simulation tests
involving text and tabular data, we evaluate five explanations methods: (1)
LIME, (2) Anchor, (3) Decision Boundary, (4) a Prototype model, and (5) a
Composite approach that combines explanations from each method. Clear evidence
of method effectiveness is found in very few cases: LIME improves
simulatability in tabular classification, and our Prototype method is effective
in counterfactual simulation tests. We also collect subjective ratings of
explanations, but we do not find that ratings are predictive of how helpful
explanations are. Our results provide the first reliable and comprehensive
estimates of how explanations influence simulatability across a variety of
explanation methods and data domains. We show that (1) we need to be careful
about the metrics we use to evaluate explanation methods, and (2) there is
significant room for improvement in current methods. All our supporting code,
data, and models are publicly available at:
https://github.com/peterbhase/InterpretableNLP-ACL2020
