Interpretability and Explainability: A Machine Learning Zoo Mini-tour

In this review, we examine the problem of designing interpretable and explainable machine learning models. Interpretability and explainability lie at the core of many machine learning and statistical applications in medicine, economics, law, and natural sciences. Although interpretability and explainability have escaped a clear universal definition, many techniques motivated by these properties have been developed over the recent 30 years with the focus currently shifting towards deep learning methods. In this review, we emphasise the divide between interpretability and explainability and illustrate these two different research directions with concrete examples of the state-of-the-art. The review is intended for a general machine learning audience with interest in exploring the problems of interpretation and explanation beyond logistic regression or random forest variable importance. This work is not an exhaustive literature survey, but rather a primer focusing selectively on certain lines of research which the authors found interesting or informative

Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning.

Machine-learning models have demonstrated great success in learning complex patterns that enable them to make predictions about unobserved data. In addition to using models for prediction, the ability to interpret what a model has learned is receiving an increasing amount of attention. However, this increased focus has led to considerable confusion about the notion of interpretability. In particular, it is unclear how the wide array of proposed interpretation methods are related and what common concepts can be used to evaluate them. We aim to address these concerns by defining interpretability in the context of machine learning and introducing the predictive, descriptive, relevant (PDR) framework for discussing interpretations. The PDR framework provides 3 overarching desiderata for evaluation: predictive accuracy, descriptive accuracy, and relevancy, with relevancy judged relative to a human audience. Moreover, to help manage the deluge of interpretation methods, we introduce a categorization of existing techniques into model-based and post hoc categories, with subgroups including sparsity, modularity, and simulatability. To demonstrate how practitioners can use the PDR framework to evaluate and understand interpretations, we provide numerous real-world examples. These examples highlight the often underappreciated role played by human audiences in discussions of interpretability. Finally, based on our framework, we discuss limitations of existing methods and directions for future work. We hope that this work will provide a common vocabulary that will make it easier for both practitioners and researchers to discuss and choose from the full range of interpretation methods

If interpretability is the answer, what is the question?

Due to the ability to model even complex dependencies, machine learning (ML) can be used to tackle a broad range of (high-stakes) prediction problems. The complexity of the resulting models comes at the cost of transparency, meaning that it is difficult to understand the model by inspecting its parameters. This opacity is considered problematic since it hampers the transfer of knowledge from the model, undermines the agency of individuals affected by algorithmic decisions, and makes it more challenging to expose non-robust or unethical behaviour. To tackle the opacity of ML models, the field of interpretable machine learning (IML) has emerged. The field is motivated by the idea that if we could understand the model's behaviour -- either by making the model itself interpretable or by inspecting post-hoc explanations -- we could also expose unethical and non-robust behaviour, learn about the data generating process, and restore the agency of affected individuals. IML is not only a highly active area of research, but the developed techniques are also widely applied in both industry and the sciences. Despite the popularity of IML, the field faces fundamental criticism, questioning whether IML actually helps in tackling the aforementioned problems of ML and even whether it should be a field of research in the first place: First and foremost, IML is criticised for lacking a clear goal and, thus, a clear definition of what it means for a model to be interpretable. On a similar note, the meaning of existing methods is often unclear, and thus they may be misunderstood or even misused to hide unethical behaviour. Moreover, estimating conditional-sampling-based techniques poses a significant computational challenge. With the contributions included in this thesis, we tackle these three challenges for IML. We join a range of work by arguing that the field struggles to define and evaluate "interpretability" because incoherent interpretation goals are conflated. However, the different goals can be disentangled such that coherent requirements can inform the derivation of the respective target estimands. We demonstrate this with the examples of two interpretation contexts: recourse and scientific inference. To tackle the misinterpretation of IML methods, we suggest deriving formal interpretation rules that link explanations to aspects of the model and data. In our work, we specifically focus on interpreting feature importance. Furthermore, we collect interpretation pitfalls and communicate them to a broader audience. To efficiently estimate conditional-sampling-based interpretation techniques, we propose two methods that leverage the dependence structure in the data to simplify the estimation problems for Conditional Feature Importance (CFI) and SAGE. A causal perspective proved to be vital in tackling the challenges: First, since IML problems such as algorithmic recourse are inherently causal; Second, since causality helps to disentangle the different aspects of model and data and, therefore, to distinguish the insights that different methods provide; And third, algorithms developed for causal structure learning can be leveraged for the efficient estimation of conditional-sampling based IML methods.Aufgrund der Fähigkeit, selbst komplexe Abhängigkeiten zu modellieren, kann maschinelles Lernen (ML) zur Lösung eines breiten Spektrums von anspruchsvollen Vorhersageproblemen eingesetzt werden. Die Komplexität der resultierenden Modelle geht auf Kosten der Interpretierbarkeit, d. h. es ist schwierig, das Modell durch die Untersuchung seiner Parameter zu verstehen. Diese Undurchsichtigkeit wird als problematisch angesehen, da sie den Wissenstransfer aus dem Modell behindert, sie die Handlungsfähigkeit von Personen, die von algorithmischen Entscheidungen betroffen sind, untergräbt und sie es schwieriger macht, nicht robustes oder unethisches Verhalten aufzudecken. Um die Undurchsichtigkeit von ML-Modellen anzugehen, hat sich das Feld des interpretierbaren maschinellen Lernens (IML) entwickelt. Dieses Feld ist von der Idee motiviert, dass wir, wenn wir das Verhalten des Modells verstehen könnten - entweder indem wir das Modell selbst interpretierbar machen oder anhand von post-hoc Erklärungen - auch unethisches und nicht robustes Verhalten aufdecken, über den datengenerierenden Prozess lernen und die Handlungsfähigkeit betroffener Personen wiederherstellen könnten. IML ist nicht nur ein sehr aktiver Forschungsbereich, sondern die entwickelten Techniken werden auch weitgehend in der Industrie und den Wissenschaften angewendet. Trotz der Popularität von IML ist das Feld mit fundamentaler Kritik konfrontiert, die in Frage stellt, ob IML tatsächlich dabei hilft, die oben genannten Probleme von ML anzugehen, und ob es überhaupt ein Forschungsgebiet sein sollte: In erster Linie wird an IML kritisiert, dass es an einem klaren Ziel und damit an einer klaren Definition dessen fehlt, was es für ein Modell bedeutet, interpretierbar zu sein. Weiterhin ist die Bedeutung bestehender Methoden oft unklar, so dass sie missverstanden oder sogar missbraucht werden können, um unethisches Verhalten zu verbergen. Letztlich stellt die Schätzung von auf bedingten Stichproben basierenden Verfahren eine erhebliche rechnerische Herausforderung dar. In dieser Arbeit befassen wir uns mit diesen drei grundlegenden Herausforderungen von IML. Wir schließen uns der Argumentation an, dass es schwierig ist, "Interpretierbarkeit" zu definieren und zu bewerten, weil inkohärente Interpretationsziele miteinander vermengt werden. Die verschiedenen Ziele lassen sich jedoch entflechten, sodass kohärente Anforderungen die Ableitung der jeweiligen Zielgrößen informieren. Wir demonstrieren dies am Beispiel von zwei Interpretationskontexten: algorithmischer Regress und wissenschaftliche Inferenz. Um der Fehlinterpretation von IML-Methoden zu begegnen, schlagen wir vor, formale Interpretationsregeln abzuleiten, die Erklärungen mit Aspekten des Modells und der Daten verknüpfen. In unserer Arbeit konzentrieren wir uns speziell auf die Interpretation von sogenannten Feature Importance Methoden. Darüber hinaus tragen wir wichtige Interpretationsfallen zusammen und kommunizieren sie an ein breiteres Publikum. Zur effizienten Schätzung auf bedingten Stichproben basierender Interpretationstechniken schlagen wir zwei Methoden vor, die die Abhängigkeitsstruktur in den Daten nutzen, um die Schätzprobleme für Conditional Feature Importance (CFI) und SAGE zu vereinfachen. Eine kausale Perspektive erwies sich als entscheidend für die Bewältigung der Herausforderungen: Erstens, weil IML-Probleme wie der algorithmische Regress inhärent kausal sind; zweitens, weil Kausalität hilft, die verschiedenen Aspekte von Modell und Daten zu entflechten und somit die Erkenntnisse, die verschiedene Methoden liefern, zu unterscheiden; und drittens können wir Algorithmen, die für das Lernen kausaler Struktur entwickelt wurden, für die effiziente Schätzung von auf bindingten Verteilungen basierenden IML-Methoden verwenden

Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: Inference, Generation, and Explainability

Over the last decade, deep neural networks have enabled remarkable technological advancements, potentially transforming a wide range of aspects of our lives in the future. It is becoming increasingly common for deep-learning models to be used in a variety of situations in the modern life, ranging from search and recommendations to financial and healthcare solutions, and the number of applications utilizing deep neural networks is still on the rise. However, a lot of recent research efforts in deep learning have focused primarily on neural networks and domains in which they excel. This includes computer vision, audio processing, and natural language processing. It is a general tendency for data in these areas to be homogeneous, whereas heterogeneous tabular datasets have received relatively scant attention despite the fact that they are extremely prevalent. In fact, more than half of the datasets on the Google dataset platform are structured and can be represented in a tabular form. The first aim of this study is to provide a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of deep neural networks' application to modeling and generating tabular data. Apart from that, an open-source performance benchmark on tabular data is presented, where we thoroughly compare over twenty machine and deep learning models on heterogeneous tabular datasets. The second contribution relates to synthetic tabular data generation. Inspired by their success in other homogeneous data modalities, deep generative models such as variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks are also commonly applied for tabular data generation. However, the use of Transformer-based large language models (which are also generative) for tabular data generation have been received scant research attention. Our contribution to this literature consists of the development of a novel method for generating tabular data based on this family of autoregressive generative models that, on multiple challenging benchmarks, outperformed the current state-of-the-art methods for tabular data generation. Another crucial aspect for a deep-learning data system is that it needs to be reliable and trustworthy to gain broader acceptance in practice, especially in life-critical fields. One of the possible ways to bring trust into a data-driven system is to use explainable machine-learning methods. In spite of this, the current explanation methods often fail to provide robust explanations due to their high sensitivity to the hyperparameter selection or even changes of the random seed. Furthermore, most of these methods are based on feature-wise importance, ignoring the crucial relationship between variables in a sample. The third aim of this work is to address both of these issues by offering more robust and stable explanations, as well as taking into account the relationships between variables using a graph structure. In summary, this thesis made a significant contribution that touched many areas related to deep neural networks and heterogeneous tabular data as well as the usage of explainable machine learning methods

What does explainable AI explain?

Machine Learning (ML) models are increasingly used in industry, as well as in scientific research and social contexts. Unfortunately, ML models provide only partial solutions to real-world problems, focusing on predictive performance in static environments. Problem aspects beyond prediction, such as robustness in employment, knowledge generation in science, or providing recourse recommendations to end-users, cannot be directly tackled with ML models. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to solve, or at least highlight, problem aspects beyond predictive performance through explanations. However, the field is still in its infancy, as fundamental questions such as “What are explanations?”, “What constitutes a good explanation?”, or “How relate explanation and understanding?” remain open. In this dissertation, I combine philosophical conceptual analysis and mathematical formalization to clarify a prerequisite of these difficult questions, namely what XAI explains: I point out that XAI explanations are either associative or causal and either aim to explain the ML model or the modeled phenomenon. The thesis is a collection of five individual research papers that all aim to clarify how different problems in XAI are related to these different “whats”. In Paper I, my co-authors and I illustrate how to construct XAI methods for inferring associational phenomenon relationships. Paper II directly relates to the first; we formally show how to quantify uncertainty of such scientific inferences for two XAI methods – partial dependence plots (PDP) and permutation feature importance (PFI). Paper III discusses the relationship between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples; I argue that adversarial examples can be described as counterfactual explanations that alter the prediction but not the underlying target variable. In Paper IV, my co-authors and I argue that algorithmic recourse recommendations should help data-subjects improve their qualification rather than to game the predictor. In Paper V, we address general problems with model agnostic XAI methods and identify possible solutions