Recently, a method [7] was proposed to generate contrastive explanations for differentiable models such as deep neural networks, where one has complete access to the model. In this work, we propose a method, Model Agnostic Contrastive Explanations Method (MACEM), to generate contrastive explanations for classification model where one is able to query the class probabilities for a desired input. This allows us to generate contrastive explanations for not only neural networks, but models such as random forests, boosted trees and even arbitrary ensembles that are still amongst the state-of-the-art when learning on structured data [13]. Moreover, to obtain meaningful explanations we propose a principled approach to handle real and categorical features leading to novel formulations for computing pertinent positives and negatives that form the essence of a contrastive explanation. A detailed treatment of the different data types of this nature was not performed in the previous work, which assumed all features to be positive real valued with zero being indicative of the least interesting value. We part with this strong implicit assumption and generalize these methods so as to be applicable across a much wider range of problem settings. We quantitatively and qualitatively validate our approach over 5 public datasets covering diverse domains.
 We provide a novel notion of what it means to be interpretable, looking past the usual association with human understanding. Our key insight is that interpretability is not an absolute concept and so we define it relative to a target model, which may or may not be a human. We define a framework that allows for comparing interpretable procedures by linking it to important practical aspects such as accuracy and robustness. We characterize many of the current state-of-the-art interpretable methods in our framework portraying its general applicability. Finally, principled interpretable strategies are proposed and empirically evaluated on synthetic data, as well as on the largest public olfaction dataset that was made recently available olfs . We also experiment on MNIST with a simple target model and different oracle models of varying complexity. This leads to the insight that the improvement in the target model is not only a function of the oracle models performance, but also its relative complexity with respect to the target model. This paper proposes algorithms for learning two-level Boolean rules in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF, i.e. AND-of-ORs) or Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF, i.e. OR-of-ANDs) as a type of human-interpretable classification model, aiming for a favorable trade-off between the classification accuracy and the simplicity of the rule. Two formulations are proposed. The first is an integer program whose objective function is a combination of the total number of errors and the total number of features used in the rule. We generalize a previously proposed linear programming (LP) relaxation from one-level to two-level rules. The second formulation replaces the 0-1 classification error with the Hamming distance from the current two-level rule to the closest rule that correctly classifies a sample. Based on this second formulation, block coordinate descent and alternating minimization algorithms are developed. Experiments show that the two-level rules can yield noticeably better performance than one-level rules due to their dramatically larger modeling capacity, and the two algorithms based on the Hamming distance formulation are generally superior to the other two-level rule learning methods in our comparison. A proposed approach to binarize any fractional values in the optimal solutions of LP relaxations is also shown to be effective. Interpretability has become incredibly important as machine learning is increasingly used to inform consequential decisions. We propose to construct global explanations of complex, blackbox models in the form of a decision tree approximating the original model---as long as the decision tree is a good approximation, then it mirrors the computation performed by the blackbox model. We devise a novel algorithm for extracting decision tree explanations that actively samples new training points to avoid overfitting. We evaluate our algorithm on a random forest to predict diabetes risk and a learned controller for cart-pole. Compared to several baselines, our decision trees are both substantially more accurate and equally or more interpretable based on a user study. Finally, we describe several insights provided by our interpretations, including a causal issue validated by a physician. 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. Supporting human decision-making is a major goal of data mining. The more decision-making is critical, the more interpretability is required in the predictive model. This paper proposes a new framework to build a fully interpretable predictive model for questionnaire data, while maintaining a reasonable prediction accuracy with regard to the final outcome. Such a model has applications in project risk assessment, in healthcare, in social studies, and, presumably, in any real-world application that relies on questionnaire data for informative and accurate prediction. Our framework is inspired by models in item response theory (IRT), which were originally developed in psychometrics with applications to standardized academic tests. We extend these models, which are essentially unsupervised, to the supervised setting. For model estimation, we introduce a new iterative algorithm by combining Gauss---Hermite quadrature with an expectation---maximization algorithm. The learned probabilistic model is linked to the metric learning framework for informative and accurate prediction. The model is validated by three real-world data sets: Two are from information technology project failure prediction and the other is an international social survey about people's happiness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that leverages the IRT framework to provide informative and accurate prediction on ordinal questionnaire data. In this paper, we propose a new method called ProfWeight for transferring information from a pre-trained deep neural network that has a high test accuracy to a simpler interpretable model or a very shallow network of low complexity and a priori low test accuracy. We are motivated by applications in interpretability and model deployment in severely memory constrained environments (like sensors). Our method uses linear probes to generate confidence scores through flattened intermediate representations. Our transfer method involves a theoretically justified weighting of samples during the training of the simple model using confidence scores of these intermediate layers. The value of our method is first demonstrated on CIFAR-10, where our weighting method significantly improves (3-4 ) networks with only a fraction of the number of Resnet blocks of a complex Resnet model. We further demonstrate operationally significant results on a real manufacturing problem, where we dramatically increase the test accuracy of a CART model (the domain standard) by roughly 13 . Understanding and interpreting classification decisions of automated image classification systems is of high value in many applications, as it allows to verify the reasoning of the system and provides additional information to the human expert. Although machine learning methods are solving very successfully a plethora of tasks, they have in most cases the disadvantage of acting as a black box, not providing any information about what made them arrive at a particular decision. This work proposes a general solution to the problem of understanding classification decisions by pixel-wise decomposition of nonlinear classifiers. We introduce a methodology that allows to visualize the contributions of single pixels to predictions for kernel-based classifiers over Bag of Words features and for multilayered neural networks. These pixel contributions can be visualized as heatmaps and are provided to a human expert who can intuitively not only verify the validity of the classification decision, but also focus further analysis on regions of potential interest. We evaluate our method for classifiers trained on PASCAL VOC 2009 images, synthetic image data containing geometric shapes, the MNIST handwritten digits data set and for the pre-trained ImageNet model available as part of the Caffe open source package. 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. Falling rule lists are classification models consisting of an ordered list of if-then rules, where (i) the order of rules determines which example should be classified by each rule, and (ii) the estimated probability of success decreases monotonically down the list. These kinds of rule lists are inspired by healthcare applications where patients would be stratified into risk sets and the highest at-risk patients should be considered first. We provide a Bayesian framework for learning falling rule lists that does not rely on traditional greedy decision tree learning methods. 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. In this paper we propose a novel method that provides contrastive explanations justifying the classification of an input by a black box classifier such as a deep neural network. Given an input we find what should be minimally and sufficiently present (viz. important object pixels in an image) to justify its classification and analogously what should be minimally and necessarily (viz. certain background pixels). We argue that such explanations are natural for humans and are used commonly in domains such as health care and criminology. What is minimally but critically is an important part of an explanation, which to the best of our knowledge, has not been explicitly identified by current explanation methods that explain predictions of neural networks. We validate our approach on three real datasets obtained from diverse domains; namely, a handwritten digits dataset MNIST, a large procurement fraud dataset and a brain activity strength dataset. In all three cases, we witness the power of our approach in generating precise explanations that are also easy for human experts to understand and evaluate.