Evaluating Local Explanations using White-box Models
  Evaluating explanation techniques using human subjects is costly,
time-consuming and can lead to subjectivity in the assessments. To evaluate the
accuracy of local explanations, we require access to the true feature
importance scores for a given instance. However, the prediction function of a
model usually does not decompose into linear additive terms that indicate how
much a feature contributes to the output. In this work, we suggest to instead
focus on the log odds ratio (LOR) of the prediction function, which naturally
decomposes into additive terms for logistic regression and naive Bayes. We
demonstrate how we can benchmark different explanation techniques in terms of
their similarity to the LOR scores based on our proposed approach. In the
experiments, we compare prominent local explanation techniques and find that
the performance of the techniques can depend on the underlying model, the
dataset, which data point is explained, the normalization of the data and the
similarity metric.
