Cited by 677Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges

Open access
Molnar, Christoph, Casalicchio, Giuseppe, Bischl, Bernd·2020·Communications in Computer and Information Science

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_28

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [42]42. Hall, M., Harborne, D., Tomsett, R., Galetic, V., Quintana-Amate, S., Nottle, A., Preece, A.: A systematic method to understand requirements for explainable AI(XAI) systems. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI 2019), Macau, China (2019)
  2. [45]45. Hastie, T.J., Tibshirani, R.J.: Generalized additive models, vol. 43. CRC press (1990)
  3. [55]55. Ishwaran, H., Kogalur, U.B., Gorodeski, E.Z., Minn, A.J., Lauer, M.S.: Highdimensional variable selection for survival data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (489), 205-217 (2010)
  4. [60]60. K¨ onig, G., Molnar, C., Bischl, B., Grosse-Wentrup, M.: Relative feature importance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08283 (2020) · arXiv
  5. [70]70. Ma, S., Tourani, R.: Predictive and causal implications of using Shapley value for model interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 2020 KDD Workshop on Causal Discovery. pp. 23-38. PMLR (2020)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Molnar, C., Casalicchio, G., & Bischl, B.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Molnar, Christoph
Venue
Communications in Computer and Information Science
Published
2020
Pages
417-431
ISSN
  • 1865-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-0937
OpenAlex
W3093029790
Cited by
677
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 132 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 1
FWCI
28.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications in computer and information science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
model interpretability, model-agnostic explanation, deep learning interpretability, surrogate models, causal interpretation, uncertainty estimation, rule-based machine learning, regression models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review