PreprintCited by 69Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

DLIME: A Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations Approach for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Systems

Open access
Zafar, Muhammad Rehman, Khan, Naimul Mefraz·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) is a popular technique used to increase the interpretability and explainability of black box Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. LIME typically generates an explanation for a single prediction by any ML model by learning a simpler interpretable model (e.g. linear classifier) around the prediction through generating simulated data around the instance by random perturbation, and obtaining feature importance through applying some form of feature selection. While LIME and similar local algorithms have gained popularity due to their simplicity, the random perturbation and feature selection methods result in "instability" in the generated explanations, where for the same prediction, different explanations can be generated. This is a critical issue that can prevent deployment of LIME in a Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) system, where stability is of utmost importance to earn the trust of medical professionals. In this paper, we propose a deterministic version of LIME. Instead of random perturbation, we utilize agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (HC) to group the training data together and K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) to select the relevant cluster of the new instance that is being explained. After finding the relevant cluster, a linear model is trained over the selected cluster to generate the explanations. Experimental results on three different medical datasets show the superiority for Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (DLIME), where we quantitatively determine the stability of DLIME compared to LIME utilizing the Jaccard similarity among multiple generated explanations.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.10263

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 interpretable algorithmic models generally belong to the global interpretation type, able to interpret the entire model's operating mechanism based on the complete data set.

    “The interpretable algorithmic models generally belong to the global interpretation type, namely, they are able to interpret the entire model's operating mechanism based on the complete data set.[167]”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 69

Authors
Zafar, M. R., & Khan, N. M.
Affiliations
Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288313203
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
lime, local interpretable model-agnostic explanations, explanation stability, computer-aided diagnosis, explainable machine learning, agglomerative clustering, k-nearest neighbors, black-box models, medical image analysis

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