On the Art and Science of Machine Learning Explanations

This text discusses several popular explanatory methods that go beyond the error measurements and plots traditionally used to assess machine learning models. Some of the explanatory methods are accepted tools of the trade while others are rigorously derived and backed by long-standing theory. The methods, decision tree surrogate models, individual conditional expectation (ICE) plots, local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME), partial dependence plots, and Shapley explanations, vary in terms of scope, fidelity, and suitable application domain. Along with descriptions of these methods, this text presents real-world usage recommendations supported by a use case and public, in-depth software examples for reproducibility.Comment: This manuscript is a preprint of the text for an invited talk at the 2019 KDD XAI workshop. A previous version has also appeared in the proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings. Errata and updates available here: https://github.com/jphall663/kdd_2019. Version 2 incorporated reviewer feedback. Version 3 includes a minor adjustment to Figure 1. Version 4 corrects a minor typ

Proceedings of the 2017 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2017)

This is the Proceedings of the 2017 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2017), which was held in Sydney, Australia, August 10, 2017. Invited speakers were Tony Jebara, Pang Wei Koh, and David Sontag

Proposed Guidelines for the Responsible Use of Explainable Machine Learning

Explainable machine learning (ML) enables human learning from ML, human appeal of automated model decisions, regulatory compliance, and security audits of ML models. Explainable ML (i.e. explainable artificial intelligence or XAI) has been implemented in numerous open source and commercial packages and explainable ML is also an important, mandatory, or embedded aspect of commercial predictive modeling in industries like financial services. However, like many technologies, explainable ML can be misused, particularly as a faulty safeguard for harmful black-boxes, e.g. fairwashing or scaffolding, and for other malevolent purposes like stealing models and sensitive training data. To promote best-practice discussions for this already in-flight technology, this short text presents internal definitions and a few examples before covering the proposed guidelines. This text concludes with a seemingly natural argument for the use of interpretable models and explanatory, debugging, and disparate impact testing methods in life- or mission-critical ML systems.Comment: Errata and updates available here: https://github.com/jphall663/responsible_xa