The increasing adoption of machine learning tools has led to calls for accountability via model interpretability. But what does it mean for a machine learning model to be interpretable by humans, and how can this be assessed? We focus on two definitions of interpretability that have been introduced in the machine learning literature: simulatability (a user's ability to run a model on a given input) and "what if" local explainability (a user's ability to correctly indicate the outcome to a model under local changes to the input). Through a user study with 1000 participants, we test whether humans perform well on tasks that mimic the definitions of simulatability and "what if" local explainability on models that are typically considered locally interpretable. We find evidence consistent with the common intuition that decision trees and logistic regression models are interpretable and are more interpretable than neural networks. We propose a metric - the runtime operation count on the simulatability task - to indicate the relative interpretability of models and show that as the number of operations increases the users' accuracy on the local interpretability tasks decreases.
Although we are unaware of existing metrics for the local interpretability of a general model, many measures developed by the program analysis community aim at assessing the understandability of a general program, which could be seen as metrics for global interpretability. For example, the counts the number of independent paths through a program using its control flow graph @cite_4 . Despite calls for more experimentally grounded assessments of interpretability @cite_1 @cite_11 , there have so far been few user studies focusing on the interpretability of machine learning models. Perhaps most similar to this paper, Poursabzi- @cite_6 measure how the number of features and model transparency affect trust, simulatability, and mistake detection using randomized user studies on a similar scale to what we will consider here. While we focus on assessing model types, Poursabzi- vary across general model attributes (e.g. black box vs. clear). They find that clear models, meaning the inner calculations of the models are displayed to the user, are best simulated. They also determined that the model type did not affect the trust the user had in the model nor improved users' ability to correct their mistakes.
@cite_1 @cite_4 @cite_6 @cite_11
2594475271 2788362053 2795530988
As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. Despite a growing body of research focused on creating interpretable machine learning methods, there have been few empirical studies verifying whether interpretable methods achieve their intended effects on end users. We present a framework for assessing the effects of model interpretability on users via pre-registered experiments in which participants are shown functionally identical models that vary in factors thought to influence interpretability. Using this framework, we ran a sequence of large-scale randomized experiments, varying two putative drivers of interpretability: the number of features and the model transparency (clear or black-box). We measured how these factors impact trust in model predictions, the ability to simulate a model, and the ability to detect a model's mistakes. We found that participants who were shown a clear model with a small number of features were better able to simulate the model's predictions. However, we found no difference in multiple measures of trust and found that clear models did not improve the ability to correct mistakes. These findings suggest that interpretability research could benefit from more emphasis on empirically verifying that interpretable models achieve all their intended effects. Advances in artificial intelligence, sensors and big data management have far-reaching societ al impacts. As these systems augment our everyday lives, it becomes increasing-ly important for people to understand them and remain in control. We investigate how HCI researchers can help to develop accountable systems by performing a literature analysis of 289 core papers on explanations and explaina-ble systems, as well as 12,412 citing papers. Using topic modeling, co-occurrence and network analysis, we mapped the research space from diverse domains, such as algorith-mic accountability, interpretable machine learning, context-awareness, cognitive psychology, and software learnability. We reveal fading and burgeoning trends in explainable systems, and identify domains that are closely connected or mostly isolated. The time is ripe for the HCI community to ensure that the powerful new autonomous systems have intelligible interfaces built-in. From our results, we propose several implications and directions for future research to-wards this goal.