Abstract
AbstractA salient approach to interpretable machine learning is to restrict modeling to simple models. In the Bayesian framework, this can be pursued by restricting the model structure and prior to favor interpretable models. Fundamentally, however, interpretability is about users’ preferences, not the data generation mechanism; it is more natural to formulate interpretability as a utility function. In this work, we propose an interpretability utility, which explicates the trade-off between explanation fidelity and interpretability in the Bayesian framework. The method consists of two steps. First, a reference model, possibly a black-box Bayesian predictive model which does not compromise accuracy, is fitted to the training data. Second, a proxy model from an interpretable model family that best mimics the predictive behaviour of the reference model is found by optimizing the interpretability utility function. The approach is model agnostic—neither the interpretable model nor the reference model are restricted to a certain class of models—and the optimization problem can be solved using standard tools. Through experiments on real-word data sets, using decision trees as interpretable models and Bayesian additive regression models as reference models, we show that for the same level of interpretability, our approach generates more accurate models than the alternative of restricting the prior. We also propose a systematic way to measure stability of interpretabile models constructed by different interpretability approaches and show that our proposed approach generates more stable models.
Funder
Academy of Finland
Vilho, Yrjö and Kalle Väisälä Foundation of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
Foundation for Aalto University Science and Technology
Finnish Foundation for Technology Promotion
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Software
Reference48 articles.
1. Bastani, H., Bastani, O., & Kim, C. (2018). Interpreting predictive models for human-in-the-loop analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08504 (pp. 1–45).
2. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C. J., & Olshen, R. A. (1984). Classification and regression trees. CRC press.
3. Breiman, L., & Shang, N. (1996). Born again trees. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA (Vol. 1, p. 2).
4. Briand, B., Ducharme, G. R., Parache, V., & Mercat-Rommens, C. (2009). A similarity measure to assess the stability of classification trees. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53(4), 1208–1217.
5. Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., & McCulloch, R. E. (1998). Bayesian CART model search. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(443), 935–948.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献