Cited by 5,427Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

The mythos of model interpretability

Open access
Lipton, Zachary C.·2018·Communications of the ACM

Abstract

In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.

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 · 10.1145/3233231

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • As users of ML systems have grown beyond ML experts and the research community, the need to better interpret and understand them has grown, particularly in high-stakes decisions that affect individuals' health or wellbeing.

    “As users of these systems have grown beyond ML experts and the research community, the need to better interpret and understand them has grown as well, particularly in the context of high-stakes decisions that affect individuals ' health or wellbeing (Lakkaraju et al., 2016; Lipton, 2018; Rudin, 2019).”

    From Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions (2023) · cites this paper as Lipton, 2018

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says that as ML models enter medicine, criminal justice, and finance, humans’ inability to understand them becomes problematic. Section 2.5 links consequential algorithmic decisions to demands for interpretable models. The copy does not establish the claimed shift in users from ML experts and researchers to a broader group. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The explainable ML community has highlighted shortfalls including lack of consistent language and definitions, lack of clearly defined explainability goals and desiderata, and lack of consensus on metrics and methods for evaluating explanation quality.

    “While this expansion of the field has yielded a rich body of methodological work, recently, the community has begun to highlight the shortfalls such as the lack of consistent language and definitions, the lack of clearly defined explainability goals, and desiderata; and the lack of consensus on metrics and methods of evaluating the quality of explanations (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017; Lipton, 2018;”

    From Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions (2023) · cites this paper as Lipton, 2018

    The Contributions section says that interpretability has no agreed-upon meaning and calls for clearer problem formulation; Section 4.2 likewise urges authors to define their objectives and demonstrate that interpretations achieve them. The Evaluation Metric section explains why conventional predictive metrics may not capture interpretability goals, but the paper does not establish a lack of consensus on metrics and methods for evaluating explanation quality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Post-hoc explanation techniques are employed to explain existing models.

    “Therefore, post-hoc explanation techniques are employed to explain existing models (Došilović et al., 2018; Lipton, 2018).”
  • Explainability is not a monolithic concept and can play different roles in different applications.

    “As explainability is not a monolithic concept and can play different roles in different applications (Lipton, 2018; Molnar, 2019), this process requires extensive domain/application-specific efforts.”

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

2 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Doshi-Velez, Finale, Wallace, Byron, and Adams, Ryan. Graph-sparse lda: a topic model with structured sparsity. AAAI, 2015.
  2. Kim, Been, Rudin, Cynthia, and Shah, Julie A. The Bayesian Case Model: A generative approach for case- based reasoning and prototype classification. In NIPS, 2014.
  3. Mikolov, Tomas, Sutskever, Ilya, Chen, Kai, Corrado, Greg S, and Dean, Jeff. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS, pp. 3111-3119, 2013.
  4. Pearl, Judea. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
  5. Ridgeway, Greg, Madigan, David, Richardson, Thomas, and O'Kane, John. Interpretable boosted naïve bayes classification. In KDD, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lipton, Z. C.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Lipton, Zachary C.
Venue
Communications of the ACM
Published
2018-09-26
Volume
61
Issue
10
Pages
36-43
ISSN
  • 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7317
OpenAlex
W2439568532
Cited by
5,427
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 803 · 2025: 918 · 2024: 633 · 2023: 657 · 2022: 575 · 2021: 664 · 2020: 521 · 2019: 395 · 2018: 190 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
249.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
  • Queue (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
model interpretability, explainable AI, machine learning 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