In Random Forests, proximity distances are a metric representation of data into decision space. By observing how changes in input map to the movement of instances in this space we are able to determine the independent contribution of each feature to the decision-making process. For binary feature vectors, this process is fully specified. As these changes in input move particular instances nearer to the in-group or out-group, the independent contribution of each feature can be uncovered. Using this technique, we are able to calculate the contribution of each feature in determining how black-box decisions were made. This allows explication of the decision-making process, audit of the classifier, and post-hoc analysis of errors in classification.
 This work presents a new classifier that is specifically designed to be fully interpretable. This technique determines the probability of a class outcome, based directly on probability assignments measured from the training data. The accuracy of the predicted probability can be improved by measuring more probability estimates from the training data to create a series expansion that refines the predicted probability. We use this work to classify four standard datasets and achieve accuracies comparable to that of Random Forests. Because this technique is interpretable by design, it is capable of determining the combinations of features that contribute to a particular classification probability for individual cases as well as the weightings of each of combination of features. Understanding why machine learning models behave the way they do empowers both system designers and end-users in many ways: in model selection, feature engineering, in order to trust and act upon the predictions, and in more intuitive user interfaces. Thus, interpretability has become a vital concern in machine learning, and work in the area of interpretable models has found renewed interest. In some applications, such models are as accurate as non-interpretable ones, and thus are preferred for their transparency. Even when they are not accurate, they may still be preferred when interpretability is of paramount importance. However, restricting machine learning to interpretable models is often a severe limitation. In this paper we argue for explaining machine learning predictions using model-agnostic approaches. By treating the machine learning models as black-box functions, these approaches provide crucial flexibility in the choice of models, explanations, and representations, improving debugging, comparison, and interfaces for a variety of users and models. We also outline the main challenges for such methods, and review a recently-introduced model-agnostic explanation approach (LIME) that addresses these challenges. Note that a newer expanded version of this paper is now available at: arXiv:1802.03888 It is critical in many applications to understand what features are important for a model, and why individual predictions were made. For tree ensemble methods these questions are usually answered by attributing importance values to input features, either globally or for a single prediction. Here we show that current feature attribution methods are inconsistent, which means changing the model to rely more on a given feature can actually decrease the importance assigned to that feature. To address this problem we develop fast exact solutions for SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanation) values, which were recently shown to be the unique additive feature attribution method based on conditional expectations that is both consistent and locally accurate. We integrate these improvements into the latest version of XGBoost, demonstrate the inconsistencies of current methods, and show how using SHAP values results in significantly improved supervised clustering performance. Feature importance values are a key part of understanding widely used models such as gradient boosting trees and random forests, so improvements to them have broad practical implications.  The purported "black box"' nature of neural networks is a barrier to adoption in applications where interpretability is essential. Here we present DeepLIFT (Deep Learning Important FeaTures), a method for decomposing the output prediction of a neural network on a specific input by backpropagating the contributions of all neurons in the network to every feature of the input. DeepLIFT compares the activation of each neuron to its 'reference activation' and assigns contribution scores according to the difference. By optionally giving separate consideration to positive and negative contributions, DeepLIFT can also reveal dependencies which are missed by other approaches. Scores can be computed efficiently in a single backward pass. We apply DeepLIFT to models trained on MNIST and simulated genomic data, and show significant advantages over gradient-based methods. A detailed video tutorial on the method is at this http URL and code is at this http URL. The predictive power of neural networks often costs model interpretability. Several techniques have been developed for explaining model outputs in terms of input features; however, it is difficult to translate such interpretations into actionable insight. Here, we propose a framework to analyze predictions in terms of the model's internal features by inspecting information flow through the network. Given a trained network and a test image, we select neurons by two metrics, both measured over a set of images created by perturbations to the input image: (1) magnitude of the correlation between the neuron activation and the network output and (2) precision of the neuron activation. We show that the former metric selects neurons that exert large influence over the network output while the latter metric selects neurons that activate on generalizable features. By comparing the sets of neurons selected by these two metrics, our framework suggests a way to investigate the internal attention mechanisms of convolutional neural networks. There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function. Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued, explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box. Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the system. Deep neural networks, or deep learning, as the field is also called, have the potential to revolutionize scientific discovery. But as these networks are applied to more and more disciplines, many scientists, whose very enterprise is founded on explanation, have been left with a nagging question: Why, model, why? This interpretability problem is galvanizing a new generation of researchers in both industry and academia. Just as the microscope revealed the cell, these researchers are crafting tools that will allow insight into how neural networks make decisions. Some tools probe the artificial intelligence (AI) without penetrating it; some are alternative algorithms that can compete with neural nets, but with more transparency; and some use still more deep learning to get inside the black box. Taken together, they add up to a new discipline. Some call it "AI neuroscience."