On Cognitive Preferences and the Plausibility of Rule-based Models

It is conventional wisdom in machine learning and data mining that logical models such as rule sets are more interpretable than other models, and that among such rule-based models, simpler models are more interpretable than more complex ones. In this position paper, we question this latter assumption by focusing on one particular aspect of interpretability, namely the plausibility of models. Roughly speaking, we equate the plausibility of a model with the likeliness that a user accepts it as an explanation for a prediction. In particular, we argue that, all other things being equal, longer explanations may be more convincing than shorter ones, and that the predominant bias for shorter models, which is typically necessary for learning powerful discriminative models, may not be suitable when it comes to user acceptance of the learned models. To that end, we first recapitulate evidence for and against this postulate, and then report the results of an evaluation in a crowd-sourcing study based on about 3.000 judgments. The results do not reveal a strong preference for simple rules, whereas we can observe a weak preference for longer rules in some domains. We then relate these results to well-known cognitive biases such as the conjunction fallacy, the representative heuristic, or the recogition heuristic, and investigate their relation to rule length and plausibility.Comment: V4: Another rewrite of section on interpretability to clarify focus on plausibility and relation to interpretability, comprehensibility, and justifiabilit

The Pragmatic Turn in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

In this paper I argue that the search for explainable models and interpretable decisions in AI must be reformulated in terms of the broader project of offering a pragmatic and naturalistic account of understanding in AI. Intuitively, the purpose of providing an explanation of a model or a decision is to make it understandable to its stakeholders. But without a previous grasp of what it means to say that an agent understands a model or a decision, the explanatory strategies will lack a well-defined goal. Aside from providing a clearer objective for XAI, focusing on understanding also allows us to relax the factivity condition on explanation, which is impossible to fulfill in many machine learning models, and to focus instead on the pragmatic conditions that determine the best fit between a model and the methods and devices deployed to understand it. After an examination of the different types of understanding discussed in the philosophical and psychological literature, I conclude that interpretative or approximation models not only provide the best way to achieve the objectual understanding of a machine learning model, but are also a necessary condition to achieve post hoc interpretability. This conclusion is partly based on the shortcomings of the purely functionalist approach to post hoc interpretability that seems to be predominant in most recent literature

Explainable AI for clinical risk prediction: a survey of concepts, methods, and modalities

Recent advancements in AI applications to healthcare have shown incredible promise in surpassing human performance in diagnosis and disease prognosis. With the increasing complexity of AI models, however, concerns regarding their opacity, potential biases, and the need for interpretability. To ensure trust and reliability in AI systems, especially in clinical risk prediction models, explainability becomes crucial. Explainability is usually referred to as an AI system's ability to provide a robust interpretation of its decision-making logic or the decisions themselves to human stakeholders. In clinical risk prediction, other aspects of explainability like fairness, bias, trust, and transparency also represent important concepts beyond just interpretability. In this review, we address the relationship between these concepts as they are often used together or interchangeably. This review also discusses recent progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction, highlighting the importance of quantitative and clinical evaluation and validation across multiple common modalities in clinical practice. It emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods to enhance trust and fairness. Adopting rigorous testing, such as using synthetic datasets with known generative factors, can further improve the reliability of explainability methods. Open access and code-sharing resources are essential for transparency and reproducibility, enabling the growth and trustworthiness of explainable research. While challenges exist, an end-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction, incorporating stakeholders from clinicians to developers, is essential for success