Search

Machine learning models are incorporated in different fields and disciplines in which some of them require a high level of accountability and transparency, for example, the healthcare sector. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the importance for plausibility and verifiability of the predictions made by machine learning models has become essential. A widely used category of explanation techniques attempts to explain models' predictions by quantifying the importance score of each input feature. However, summarizing such scores to provide human-interpretable explanations is challenging. Another category of explanation techniques focuses on learning a domain representation in terms of high-level human-understandable concepts and then utilizing them to explain predictions. These explanations are hampered by how concepts are constructed, which is not intrinsically interpretable. To this end, we propose Concept-based Local Explanations with Feedback (CLEF), a novel local model agnostic explanation framework for learning a set of high-level transparent concept definitions in high-dimensional tabular data that uses clinician-labeled concepts rather than raw features. CLEF maps the raw input features to high-level intuitive concepts and then decompose the evidence of prediction of the instance being explained into concepts. In addition, the proposed framework generates counterfactual explanations, suggesting the minimum changes in the instance's concept based explanation that will lead to a different prediction. We demonstrate with simulated user feedback on predicting the risk of mortality. Such direct feedback is more effective than other techniques, that rely on hand-labelled or automatically extracted concepts, in learning concepts that align with ground truth concept definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although complex machine learning models (eg, random forest, neural networks) are commonly outperforming the traditional and simple interpretable models (eg, linear regression, decision tree), in the healthcare domain, clinicians find it hard to understand and trust these complex models due to the lack of intuition and explanation of their predictions. With the new general data protection regulation (GDPR), the importance for plausibility and verifiability of the predictions made by machine learning models has become essential. Hence, interpretability techniques for machine learning models are an area focus of research. In general, the main aim of these interpretability techniques is to shed light and provide insights into the prediction process of the machine learning models and to be able to explain how the results from the prediction was generated. A major problem in this context is that both the quality of the interpretability techniques and trust of the machine learning model predictions are challenging to measure. In this article, we propose four fundamental quantitative measures for assessing the quality of interpretability techniques—similarity, bias detection, execution time, and trust. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation of six recent and popular local model agnostic interpretability techniques, namely, LIME, SHAP, Anchors, LORE, ILIME" and MAPLE on different types of real‐world healthcare data. Building on previous work, our experimental evaluation covers different aspects for its comparison including identity, stability, separability, similarity, execution time, bias detection, and trust. The results of our experiments show that MAPLE achieves the highest performance for the identity across all data sets included in this study, while LIME achieves the lowest performance for the identity metric. LIME achieves the highest performance for the separability metric across all data sets. On average, SHAP has the smallest average time to output explanation across all data sets included in this study. For detecting the bias, SHAP and MAPLE enable the participants to better detect the bias. For the trust metric, Anchors achieves the highest performance on all data sets included in this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]