More and more AI services are provided through APIs on cloud where predictive models are hidden behind APIs. To build trust with users and reduce potential application risk, it is important to interpret how such predictive models hidden behind APIs make their decisions. The biggest challenge of interpreting such predictions is that no access to model parameters or training data is available. Existing works interpret the predictions of a model hidden behind an API by heuristically probing the response of the API with perturbed input instances. However, these methods do not provide any guarantee on the exactness and consistency of their interpretations. In this paper, we propose an elegant closed form solution named OpenAPI to compute exact and consistent interpretations for the family of Piecewise Linear Models (PLM), which includes many popular classification models. The major idea is to first construct a set of overdetermined linear equation systems with a small set of perturbed instances and the predictions made by the model on those instances. Then, we solve the equation systems to identify the decision features that are responsible for the prediction on an input instance. Our extensive experiments clearly demonstrate the exactness and consistency of our method.
Last, the interpret the behavior of a predictive model in a small neighborhood of the instance to be interpreted. The key idea is to use a simple and interpretable model to analyze the predictions on a set of perturbed instances generated by perturbing the features of the instance to be interpreted. Ribeiro @cite_17 proposed LIME to capture the decision features for an instance to be interpreted by training a linear model that fits the predictions on a sample of the perturbed instances. They also proposed Anchors @cite_18 to find the explanatory rules that dominate the predictions on a sample of perturbed instances. Fong @cite_48 proposed to interpret the classification result of an image by finding the smallest pixel-deletion mask that causes the most significant drop of the prediction score.
@cite_48 @cite_18 @cite_17
2962981568 2788403449 2282821441
As machine learning algorithms are increasingly applied to high impact yet high risk tasks, such as medical diagnosis or autonomous driving, it is critical that researchers can explain how such algorithms arrived at their predictions. In recent years, a number of image saliency methods have been developed to summarize where highly complex neural networks “look” in an image for evidence for their predictions. However, these techniques are limited by their heuristic nature and architectural constraints. In this paper, we make two main contributions: First, we propose a general framework for learning different kinds of explanations for any black box algorithm. Second, we specialise the framework to find the part of an image most responsible for a classifier decision. Unlike previous works, our method is model-agnostic and testable because it is grounded in explicit and interpretable image perturbations. Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally varound the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted.