While several types of post hoc explanation methods have been proposed in recent literature, there is very little work on systematically benchmarking these methods. Here, we introduce OpenXAI, a comprehensive and extensible open-source framework for evaluating and benchmarking post hoc explanation methods. OpenXAI comprises of the following key components: (i) a flexible synthetic data generator and a collection of diverse real-world datasets, pre-trained models, and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods, (ii) open-source implementations of twenty-two quantitative metrics for evaluating faithfulness, stability (robustness), and fairness of explanation methods, and (iii) the first ever public XAI leaderboards to readily compare several explanation methods across a wide variety of metrics, models, and datasets. OpenXAI is easily extensible, as users can readily evaluate custom explanation methods and incorporate them into our leaderboards. Overall, OpenXAI provides an automated end-to-end pipeline that not only simplifies and standardizes the evaluation of post hoc explanation methods, but also promotes transparency and reproducibility in benchmarking these methods. While the first release of OpenXAI supports only tabular datasets, the explanation methods and metrics that we consider are general enough to be applicable to other data modalities. OpenXAI datasets and data loaders, implementations of state-of-the-art explanation methods and evaluation metrics, as well as leaderboards are publicly available at https://open-xai.github.io/. OpenXAI will be regularly updated to incorporate text and image datasets, other new metrics and explanation methods, and welcomes inputs from the community.

A growing body of research runs human subject evaluations to study whether providing users with explanations of machine learning models can help them with practical real-world use cases. However, running user studies is challenging and costly, and consequently each study typically only evaluates a limited number of different settings, e.g., studies often only evaluate a few arbitrarily selected model explanation methods. To address these challenges and aid user study design, we introduce Simulated Evaluations (SimEvals). SimEvals involve training algorithmic agents that take as input the information content (such as model explanations) that would be presented to the user, to predict answers to the use case of interest. The algorithmic agent's test set accuracy provides a measure of the predictiveness of the information content for the downstream use case. We run a comprehensive evaluation on three real-world use cases (forward simulation, model debugging, and counterfactual reasoning) to demonstrate that SimEvals can effectively identify which explanation methods will help humans for each use case. These results provide evidence that \simevals{} can be used to efficiently screen an important set of user study design decisions, e.g., selecting which explanations should be presented to the user, before running a potentially costly user study.