The DOI matches its DataCite record; 15 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretability
Open accessAbstract
InterpretML is an open-source Python package which exposes machine learning interpretability algorithms to practitioners and researchers. InterpretML exposes two types of interpretability - glassbox models, which are machine learning models designed for interpretability (ex: linear models, rule lists, generalized additive models), and blackbox explainability techniques for explaining existing systems (ex: Partial Dependence, LIME). The package enables practitioners to easily compare interpretability algorithms by exposing multiple methods under a unified API, and by having a built-in, extensible visualization platform. InterpretML also includes the first implementation of the Explainable Boosting Machine, a powerful, interpretable, glassbox model that can be as accurate as many blackbox models. The MIT licensed source code can be downloaded from github.com/microsoft/interpret.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Various toolboxes have been released in the past years to assist the algorithm experimentation and software development to enhance AI trustworthiness in different aspects such as fairness [12, 13, 71], XAI [56, 1, 8], and adversarial robustness [55, 2].”
From Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices (2023) · cites this paper as [56]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Therefore, only features that are related to other features are considered relevant for anomaly detection.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“They assume that anomalies are those instances that violate the normal dependencies between features.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Meanwhile, Noto et al. [154] and Paulheim & Meusel [167] try to find a relevant feature subset for anomaly detection by exploring the correlations between features.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Only explores”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Robust to noisy”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
Intelligible Models for HealthCare: Predicting Pneumonia Risk and Hospital 30-day Readmission
Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., & Elhadad, N. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2788613 · Cited by 1,685
Self-citationSALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis
Herman, J. D., & Usher, W. (2017) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.00097 · Cited by 1,549
Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare
Ahmad, M. A., Eckert, C., & Teredesai, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics · doi:10.1145/3233547.3233667 · Cited by 583
Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., Gehrke, J., & Hooker, G. (2013) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2487575.2487579 · Cited by 564 · cited 2×
“EBM is a fast implementation of the GA 2 M algorithm (Lou et al., 2013), written in C++ and Python.”
MethodSelf-citationIntelligible models for classification and regression
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., & Gehrke, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2339530.2339556 · Cited by 547
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762
Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges
Rudin, C., Chen, C., Chen, Z., Huang, H., Semenova, L., & Zhong, C. (2022) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/21-ss133 · Cited by 958
Interpretable Machine Learning – A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challenges
Molnar, C., Casalicchio, G., & Bischl, B. (2020) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_28 · Cited by 677
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728
Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
Li, B., Qi, P., Liu, B., Di, S., Liu, J., Pei, J., Yi, J., & Zhou, B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3555803 · Cited by 612
Metadata
- Authors
- Nori, H., Jenkins, S., Koch, P., & Caruana, R.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1909.09223
- OpenAlex
- W2973631113
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 4
- 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)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- model interpretability, explainable AI, partial dependence, lime, explainable boosting machine, model visualization, Python library
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
