Exploring Evaluation Methods for Interpretable Machine Learning: A Survey

被引:8
|
作者
Alangari, Nourah [1 ]
Menai, Mohamed El Bachir [1 ]
Mathkour, Hassan [1 ]
Almosallam, Ibrahim [2 ]
机构
[1] King Saud Univ, Coll Comp & Informat Sci, Dept Comp Sci, Riyadh 11543, Saudi Arabia
[2] Saudi Informat Technol Co SITE, Riyadh 12382, Saudi Arabia
关键词
interpretability; explainable AI; evaluating interpretability; BLACK-BOX; RULES; CLASSIFICATION; ACCURACY; ISSUES;
D O I
10.3390/info14080469
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
In recent times, the progress of machine learning has facilitated the development of decision support systems that exhibit predictive accuracy, surpassing human capabilities in certain scenarios. However, this improvement has come at the cost of increased model complexity, rendering them black-box models that obscure their internal logic from users. These black boxes are primarily designed to optimize predictive accuracy, limiting their applicability in critical domains such as medicine, law, and finance, where both accuracy and interpretability are crucial factors for model acceptance. Despite the growing body of research on interpretability, there remains a significant dearth of evaluation methods for the proposed approaches. This survey aims to shed light on various evaluation methods employed in interpreting models. Two primary procedures are prevalent in the literature: qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Qualitative evaluations rely on human assessments, while quantitative evaluations utilize computational metrics. Human evaluation commonly manifests as either researcher intuition or well-designed experiments. However, this approach is susceptible to human biases and fatigue and cannot adequately compare two models. Consequently, there has been a recent decline in the use of human evaluation, with computational metrics gaining prominence as a more rigorous method for comparing and assessing different approaches. These metrics are designed to serve specific goals, such as fidelity, comprehensibility, or stability. The existing metrics often face challenges when scaling or being applied to different types of model outputs and alternative approaches. Another important factor that needs to be addressed is that while evaluating interpretability methods, their results may not always be entirely accurate. For instance, relying on the drop in probability to assess fidelity can be problematic, particularly when facing the challenge of out-of-distribution data. Furthermore, a fundamental challenge in the interpretability domain is the lack of consensus regarding its definition and requirements. This issue is compounded in the evaluation process and becomes particularly apparent when assessing comprehensibility.
引用
收藏
页数:29
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Algorithms for Interpretable Machine Learning
    Rudin, Cynthia
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ACM SIGKDD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING (KDD'14), 2014, : 1519 - 1519
  • [22] Interpretable machine learning for genomics
    Watson, David S.
    HUMAN GENETICS, 2022, 141 (09) : 1499 - 1513
  • [23] Interpretable machine learning for genomics
    David S. Watson
    Human Genetics, 2022, 141 : 1499 - 1513
  • [24] Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learning
    Du, Mengnan
    Li, Ninghao
    Hu, Xia
    COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2020, 63 (01) : 68 - 77
  • [25] Interpretable Machine Learning for TabPFN
    Rundel, David
    Kobialka, Julius
    von Crailsheim, Constantin
    Feurer, Matthias
    Nagler, Thomas
    Ruegamer, David
    EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PT II, XAI 2024, 2024, 2154 : 465 - 476
  • [26] Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare
    Ahmad, Muhammad Aurangzeb
    Eckert, Carly
    Teredesai, Ankur
    2018 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS (ICHI), 2018, : 447 - 447
  • [27] Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare
    Ahmad, Muhammad Aurangzeb
    Eckert, Carly
    Teredesai, Ankur
    ACM-BCB'18: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2018 ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOINFORMATICS, COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, 2018, : 559 - 560
  • [28] A survey on interpretable reinforcement learning
    Glanois, Claire
    Weng, Paul
    Zimmer, Matthieu
    Li, Dong
    Yang, Tianpei
    Hao, Jianye
    Liu, Wulong
    MACHINE LEARNING, 2024, 113 (08) : 5847 - 5890
  • [29] Machine Learning Interpretability: A Survey on Methods and Metrics
    Carvalho, Diogo, V
    Pereira, Eduardo M.
    Cardoso, Jaime S.
    ELECTRONICS, 2019, 8 (08)
  • [30] Machine Learning Methods for Weather Forecasting: A Survey
    Zhang, Huijun
    Liu, Yaxin
    Zhang, Chongyu
    Li, Ningyun
    ATMOSPHERE, 2025, 16 (01)