  Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) is a popular method to
perform interpretability of any kind of Machine Learning (ML) model. It
explains one ML prediction at a time, by learning a simple linear model around
the prediction. The model is trained on randomly generated data points, sampled
from the training dataset distribution and weighted according to the distance
from the reference point - the one being explained by LIME. Feature selection
is applied to keep only the most important variables. LIME is widespread across
different domains, although its instability - a single prediction may obtain
different explanations - is one of the major shortcomings. This is due to the
randomness in the sampling step, as well as to the flexibility in tuning the
weights and determines a lack of reliability in the retrieved explanations,
making LIME adoption problematic. In Medicine especially, clinical
professionals trust is mandatory to determine the acceptance of an explainable
algorithm, considering the importance of the decisions at stake and the related
legal issues. In this paper, we highlight a trade-off between explanation's
stability and adherence, namely how much it resembles the ML model. Exploiting
our innovative discovery, we propose a framework to maximise stability, while
retaining a predefined level of adherence. OptiLIME provides freedom to choose
the best adherence-stability trade-off level and more importantly, it clearly
highlights the mathematical properties of the retrieved explanation. As a
result, the practitioner is provided with tools to decide whether the
explanation is reliable, according to the problem at hand. We extensively test
OptiLIME on a toy dataset - to present visually the geometrical findings - and
a medical dataset. In the latter, we show how the method comes up with
meaningful explanations both from a medical and mathematical standpoint.
