Since most machine learning models provide no explanations for the predictions, their predictions are obscure for the human. The ability to explain a model's prediction has become a necessity in many applications including Twitter mining. In this work, we propose a method called Explainable Twitter Mining (Ex-Twit) combining Topic Modeling and Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation (LIME) to predict the topic and explain the model predictions. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Ex-Twit on Twitter health-related data.
Prediction without justification has limited applicability. As a remedy, we learn to extract pieces of input text as justifications -- rationales -- that are tailored to be short and coherent, yet sufficient for making the same prediction. Our approach combines two modular components, generator and encoder, which are trained to operate well together. The generator specifies a distribution over text fragments as candidate rationales and these are passed through the encoder for prediction. Rationales are never given during training. Instead, the model is regularized by desiderata for rationales. We evaluate the approach on multi-aspect sentiment analysis against manually annotated test cases. Our approach outperforms attention-based baseline by a significant margin. We also successfully illustrate the method on the question retrieval task. We aim to produce predictive models that are not only accurate, but are also interpretable to human experts. Our models are decision lists, which consist of a series of if...then... statements (for example, if high blood pressure, then stroke) that discretize a high-dimensional, multivariate feature space into a series of simple, readily interpretable decision statements. We introduce a generative model called Bayesian Rule Lists that yields a posterior distribution over possible decision lists. It employs a novel prior structure to encourage sparsity. Our experiments show that Bayesian Rule Lists has predictive accuracy on par with the current top algorithms for prediction in machine learning. Our method is motivated by recent developments in personalized medicine, and can be used to produce highly accurate and interpretable medical scoring systems. We demonstrate this by producing an alternative to the CHADS2 score, actively used in clinical practice for estimating the risk of stroke in patients that have atrial fibrillation. Our model is as interpretable as CHADS2, but more accurate. We present the Mind the Gap Model (MGM), an approach for interpretable feature extraction and selection. By placing interpretability criteria directly into the model, we allow for the model to both optimize parameters related to interpretability and to directly report a global set of distinguishable dimensions to assist with further data exploration and hypothesis generation. MGM extracts distinguishing features on real-world datasets of animal features, recipes ingredients, and disease co-occurrence. It also maintains or improves performance when compared to related approaches. We perform a user study with domain experts to show the MGM's ability to help with dataset exploration. 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.