3.8 Proceedings Paper

Faithful and Customizable Explanations of Black Box Models

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3306618.3314229

关键词

Interpretable machine learning; Decision making; Black box models

资金

  1. NSF [IIS-1149837]
  2. Ford
  3. SAP
  4. Lightspeed
  5. Stanford Data Science Initiative
  6. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub
  7. Robert Bosch Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  8. Microsoft Dissertation Grant
  9. Google Anitaborg Scholarship
  10. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
  11. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) [2017-17071900005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As predictive models increasingly assist human experts (e.g., doctors) in day-to-day decision making, it is crucial for experts to be able to explore and understand how such models behave in different feature subspaces in order to know if and when to trust them. To this end, we propose Model Understanding through Subspace Explanations (MUSE), a novel model agnostic framework which facilitates understanding of a given black box model by explaining how it behaves in subspaces characterized by certain features of interest. Our framework provides end users (e.g., doctors) with the flexibility of customizing the model explanations by allowing them to input the features of interest. The construction of explanations is guided by a novel objective function that we propose to simultaneously optimize for fidelity to the original model, unambiguity and interpretability of the explanation. More specifically, our objective allows us to learn, with optimality guarantees, a small number of compact decision sets each of which captures the behavior of a given black box model in unambiguous, well-defined regions of the feature space. Experimental evaluation with real-world datasets and user studies demonstrate that our approach can generate customizable, highly compact, easy-to-understand, yet accurate explanations of various kinds of predictive models compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据