  Setting proper evaluation objectives for explainable artificial intelligence
(XAI) is vital for making XAI algorithms follow human communication norms,
support human reasoning processes, and fulfill human needs for AI explanations.
In this position paper, we examine the most pervasive human-grounded concept in
XAI evaluation, explanation plausibility. Plausibility measures how reasonable
the machine explanation is compared to the human explanation. Plausibility has
been conventionally formulated as an important evaluation objective for AI
explainability tasks. We argue against this idea, and show how optimizing and
evaluating XAI for plausibility is sometimes harmful, and always ineffective in
achieving model understandability, transparency, and trustworthiness.
Specifically, evaluating XAI algorithms for plausibility regularizes the
machine explanation to express exactly the same content as human explanation,
which deviates from the fundamental motivation for humans to explain:
expressing similar or alternative reasoning trajectories while conforming to
understandable forms or language. Optimizing XAI for plausibility regardless of
the model decision correctness also jeopardizes model trustworthiness, because
doing so breaks an important assumption in human-human explanation that
plausible explanations typically imply correct decisions, and vice versa; and
violating this assumption eventually leads to either undertrust or overtrust of
AI models. Instead of being the end goal in XAI evaluation, plausibility can
serve as an intermediate computational proxy for the human process of
interpreting explanations to optimize the utility of XAI. We further highlight
the importance of explainability-specific evaluation objectives by
differentiating the AI explanation task from the object localization task.
