CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 150Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations

Open access
Plumb, Gregory, Molitor, Denali, Talwalkar, Ameet·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1807.02910arXiv 1807.02910
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Model interpretability is an increasingly important component of practical machine learning. Some of the most common forms of interpretability systems are example-based, local, and global explanations. One of the main challenges in interpretability is designing explanation systems that can capture aspects of each of these explanation types, in order to develop a more thorough understanding of the model. We address this challenge in a novel model called MAPLE that uses local linear modeling techniques along with a dual interpretation of random forests (both as a supervised neighborhood approach and as a feature selection method). MAPLE has two fundamental advantages over existing interpretability systems. First, while it is effective as a black-box explanation system, MAPLE itself is a highly accurate predictive model that provides faithful self explanations, and thus sidesteps the typical accuracy-interpretability trade-off. Specifically, we demonstrate, on several UCI datasets, that MAPLE is at least as accurate as random forests and that it produces more faithful local explanations than LIME, a popular interpretability system. Second, MAPLE provides both example-based and local explanations and can detect global patterns, which allows it to diagnose limitations in its local explanations.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1807.02910

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [1][1] David Baehrens, Timon Schroeter, Stefan Harmeling, Motoaki Kawanabe, Katja Hansen, and Klaus-Robert MÞller. How to explain individual classification decisions. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11(Jun):1803-1831, 2010. -
  2. [2][2] Jacob Bien and Robert Tibshirani. Prototype selection for interpretable classification. The Annals of Applied Statistics , pages 2403-2424, 2011. -
  3. [3][3] Adam Bloniarz, Ameet Talwalkar, Bin Yu, and Christopher Wu. Supervised neighborhoods for distributed nonparametric regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 1450-1459, 2016. -
  4. [4][4] Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning , 45(1):5-32, 2001. -
  5. [5][5] Samprit Chatterjee and Ali S Hadi. Influential observations, high leverage points, and outliers in linear regression. Statistical Science , pages 379-393, 1986. -
  6. [6][6] R Dennis Cook and Sanford Weisberg. Characterizations of an empirical influence function for detecting influential cases in regression. Technometrics , 22(4):495-508, 1980. -
  7. [9][9] Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics , pages 1189-1232, 2001. -
  8. [10][10] Shachar Kaufman, Saharon Rosset, Claudia Perlich, and Ori Stitelman. Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) , 6(4):15, 2012. -
  9. [11][11] Jalil Kazemitabar, Arash Amini, Adam Bloniarz, and Ameet S Talwalkar. Variable importance using decision trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 425-434, 2017. -
  10. [12][12] Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04730 , 2017. - · arXiv
  11. [13][13] Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stephen H Bach, and Jure Leskovec. Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 1675-1684. ACM, 2016. -
  12. [15][15] Zachary C Lipton. The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490 , 2016. - · arXiv
  13. [17][17] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 1135-1144. ACM, 2016. -
  14. [18][18] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Anchors: High-precision modelagnostic explanations. AAAI, 2018. -
  15. [19][19] Erwan Scornet. Random forests and kernel methods. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 62(3):1485-1500, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 150

Related

Metadata

Authors
Plumb, G., Molitor, D., & Talwalkar, A.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1807.02910
arXiv
1807.02910
OpenAlex
W2898138693
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • 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, local explanations, maple, random forest, linear modeling, feature selection, example-based explanations, global patterns, lime, self-explanation, accuracy-interpretability trade-off

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