When predictive models are used to support complex and important decisions, the ability to explain a model's reasoning can increase trust, expose hidden biases, and reduce vulnerability to adversarial attacks. However, attempts at interpreting models are often ad hoc and application-specific, and the concept of interpretability itself is not well-defined. We propose a general optimization framework to create explanations for linear models. Our methodology decomposes a linear model into a sequence of models of increasing complexity using coordinate updates on the coefficients. Computing this decomposition optimally is a difficult optimization problem for which we propose exact algorithms and scalable heuristics. By solving this problem, we can derive a parametrized family of interpretability metrics for linear models that generalizes typical proxies, and study the tradeoff between interpretability and predictive accuracy.
Training low-complexity models often affects predictive accuracy, and the tradeoff between the two can be difficult to quantify @cite_9 . Similarly, the limitations of an ex post explanation relative to the original black box model can be difficult to explain to users @cite_16 . And it is not clear that practitioners always find models that optimize these proxies more interpretable @cite_8 . Recent landmark works @cite_3 @cite_22 @cite_16 have argued that any study of interpretability must include input from human users. The framework we propose is both human-driven and mathematically rigorous, as users can define their own understanding of interpretability and quantify the resulting tradeoff with accuracy.
@cite_22 @cite_8 @cite_9 @cite_3 @cite_16
2808925008 2803532212 2567533607 1996796871
The widescale use of machine learning algorithms to drive decision-making has highlighted the critical importance of ensuring the interpretability of such models in order to engender trust in their output. The state-of-the-art recommendation systems use black-box latent factor models that provide no explanation of why a recommendation has been made, as they abstract their decision processes to a high-dimensional latent space which is beyond the direct comprehension of humans. We propose a novel approach for extracting explanations from latent factor recommendation systems by training association rules on the output of a matrix factorisation black-box model. By taking advantage of the interpretable structure of association rules, we demonstrate that predictive accuracy of the recommendation model can be maintained whilst yielding explanations with high fidelity to the black-box model on a unique industry dataset. Our approach mitigates the accuracy-interpretability trade-off whilst avoiding the need to sacrifice flexibility or use external data sources. We also contribute to the ill-defined problem of evaluating interpretability. The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users. The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. Therefore, we need explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision. In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e., explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instance's features that lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the accuracy in mimicking the black box. Data-trained predictive models see widespread use, but for the most part they are used as black boxes which output a prediction or score. It is therefore hard to acquire a deeper understanding of model behavior, and in particular how different features influence the model prediction. This is important when interpreting the behavior of complex models, or asserting that certain problematic attributes (like race or gender) are not unduly influencing decisions. In this paper, we present a technique for auditing black-box models, which lets us study the extent to which existing models take advantage of particular features in the dataset, without knowing how the models work. Our work focuses on the problem of indirect influence: how some features might indirectly influence outcomes via other, related features. As a result, we can find attribute influences even in cases where, upon further direct examination of the model, the attribute is not referred to by the model at all. Our approach does not require the black-box model to be retrained. This is important if (for example) the model is only accessible via an API, and contrasts our work with other methods that investigate feature influence like feature selection. We present experimental evidence for the effectiveness of our procedure using a variety of publicly available datasets and models. We also validate our procedure using techniques from interpretable learning and feature selection, as well as against other black-box auditing procedures. In machine learning often a tradeoff must be made between accuracy and intelligibility. More accurate models such as boosted trees, random forests, and neural nets usually are not intelligible, but more intelligible models such as logistic regression, naive-Bayes, and single decision trees often have significantly worse accuracy. This tradeoff sometimes limits the accuracy of models that can be applied in mission-critical applications such as healthcare where being able to understand, validate, edit, and trust a learned model is important. We present two case studies where high-performance generalized additive models with pairwise interactions (GA2Ms) are applied to real healthcare problems yielding intelligible models with state-of-the-art accuracy. In the pneumonia risk prediction case study, the intelligible model uncovers surprising patterns in the data that previously had prevented complex learned models from being fielded in this domain, but because it is intelligible and modular allows these patterns to be recognized and removed. In the 30-day hospital readmission case study, we show that the same methods scale to large datasets containing hundreds of thousands of patients and thousands of attributes while remaining intelligible and providing accuracy comparable to the best (unintelligible) machine learning methods.