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
2439568532 2119315254 2160455305 2594475271 2807015674
Supervised machine learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? We want models to be not only good, but interpretable. And yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. Papers provide diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability, and offer myriad notions of what attributes render models interpretable. Despite this ambiguity, many papers proclaim interpretability axiomatically, absent further explanation. In this paper, we seek to refine the discourse on interpretability. First, we examine the motivations underlying interest in interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, we address model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post-hoc explanations as competing notions. Throughout, we discuss the feasibility and desirability of different notions, and question the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not. Abstract Widespread use of medical information systems and explosive growth of medical databases require traditional manual data analysis to be coupled with methods for efficient computer-assisted analysis. This paper presents selected data mining techniques that can be applied in medicine, and in particular some machine learning techniques including the mechanisms that make them better suited for the analysis of medical databases (derivation of symbolic rules, use of background knowledge, sensitivity and specificity of induced descriptions). The importance of the interpretability of results of data analysis is discussed and illustrated on selected medical applications. There are two cultures in the use of statistical modeling to reach conclusions from data. One assumes that the data are generated bya given stochastic data model. The other uses algorithmic models and treats the data mechanism as unknown. The statistical communityhas been committed to the almost exclusive use of data models. This commit- ment has led to irrelevant theory, questionable conclusions, and has kept statisticians from working on a large range of interesting current prob- lems. Algorithmic modeling, both in theoryand practice, has developed rapidlyin fields outside statistics. It can be used both on large complex data sets and as a more accurate and informative alternative to data modeling on smaller data sets. If our goal as a field is to use data to solve problems, then we need to move awayfrom exclusive dependence on data models and adopt a more diverse set of tools. 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.