Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learning
Open accessAbstract
Interpretable machine learning tackles the important problem that humans cannot understand the behaviors of complex machine learning models and how these models arrive at a particular decision. Although many approaches have been proposed, a comprehensive understanding of the achievements and challenges is still lacking. We provide a survey covering existing techniques to increase the interpretability of machine learning models. We also discuss crucial issues that the community should consider in future work such as designing user-friendly explanations and developing comprehensive evaluation metrics to further push forward the area of interpretable machine learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The fundamental premise is to develop a simplified prototype system to emulate the complicated primary model by optimizing the loss function.
“By optimizing the loss function underneath, the fundamental premise is to develop a simplified prototype system to emulate the complicated primary model [1], [57]:”
From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Feature extraction compresses the dimensionality of the problem and thereby undermines the veracity of the initial formulation.
“Nevertheless, such extraction puts emphasis on compressing the dimensionality of the problem, which undermines the veracity of the initial formulation [1], [57].”
From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Chamola, V., Hassija, V., Sulthana, A. R., Ghosh, D., Dhingra, D., & Sikdar, B. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294569 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
Interpretable and Fine-Grained Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks
Wagner, J., Köhler, J. M., Gindele, T., Hetzel, L., Wiedemer, J. T., & Behnke, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00931 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
A Human-AI Collaborative Approach for Clinical Decision Making on Rehabilitation Assessment
Lee, M. H., Siewiorek, D. P., Smailagic, A., Bernardino, A., & Bermúdez i Badia, S. B. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445472 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
- Authors
- Du, M., Liu, N., & Hu, X.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-77
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1808.00033
- OpenAlex
- W2996061341
- Cited by
- 1,261
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 90 · 2025: 168 · 2024: 221 · 2023: 225 · 2022: 217 · 2021: 182 · 2020: 125 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 63.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- model interpretability, explainable AI, model transparency
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
