On The Stability of Interpretable Models

Interpretable classification models are built with the purpose of providing a comprehensible description of the decision logic to an external oversight agent. When considered in isolation, a decision tree, a set of classification rules, or a linear model, are widely recognized as human-interpretable. However, such models are generated as part of a larger analytical process. Bias in data collection and preparation, or in model's construction may severely affect the accountability of the design process. We conduct an experimental study of the stability of interpretable models with respect to feature selection, instance selection, and model selection. Our conclusions should raise awareness and attention of the scientific community on the need of a stability impact assessment of interpretable models

Quantifying Model Complexity via Functional Decomposition for Better Post-Hoc Interpretability

Post-hoc model-agnostic interpretation methods such as partial dependence plots can be employed to interpret complex machine learning models. While these interpretation methods can be applied regardless of model complexity, they can produce misleading and verbose results if the model is too complex, especially w.r.t. feature interactions. To quantify the complexity of arbitrary machine learning models, we propose model-agnostic complexity measures based on functional decomposition: number of features used, interaction strength and main effect complexity. We show that post-hoc interpretation of models that minimize the three measures is more reliable and compact. Furthermore, we demonstrate the application of these measures in a multi-objective optimization approach which simultaneously minimizes loss and complexity