DLIME: A Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations Approach for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Systems
Open accessAbstract
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
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 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]”
From Machine Learning for Perovskite Solar Cells and Component Materials: Key Technologies and Prospects (2023) · cites this paper as [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)
- arXiv
- 1906.10263
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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