In real data, missing values occur frequently, which affects the interpretation with interpretable machine learning (IML) methods. Recent work considers bias and shows that model explanations may differ between imputation methods, while ignoring additional imputation uncertainty and its influence on variance and confidence intervals. We therefore compare the effects of different imputation methods on the confidence interval coverage probabilities of the IML methods permutation feature importance, partial dependence plots and Shapley values. We show that single imputation leads to underestimation of variance and that, in most cases, only multiple imputation is close to nominal coverage.

As machine learning systems are increasingly used in high-stakes domains, there is a growing emphasis placed on making them interpretable to improve trust in these systems. In response, a range of interpretable machine learning (IML) methods have been developed to generate human-understandable insights into otherwise black box models. With these methods, a fundamental question arises: Are these interpretations reliable? Unlike with prediction accuracy or other evaluation metrics for supervised models, the proximity to the true interpretation is difficult to define. Instead, we ask a closely related question that we argue is a prerequisite for reliability: Are these interpretations stable? We define stability as findings that are consistent or reliable under small random perturbations to the data or algorithms. In this study, we conduct the first systematic, large-scale empirical stability study on popular machine learning global interpretations for both supervised and unsupervised tasks on tabular data. Our findings reveal that popular interpretation methods are frequently unstable, notably less stable than the predictions themselves, and that there is no association between the accuracy of machine learning predictions and the stability of their associated interpretations. Moreover, we show that no single method consistently provides the most stable interpretations across a range of benchmark datasets. Overall, these results suggest that interpretability alone does not warrant trust, and underscores the need for rigorous evaluation of interpretation stability in future work. To support these principles, we have developed and released an open source IML dashboard and Python package to enable researchers to assess the stability and reliability of their own data-driven interpretations and discoveries.

Interpretable machine learning (IML) is concerned with the behavior and the properties of machine learning models. Scientists, however, are only interested in models as a gateway to understanding phenomena. Our work aligns these two perspectives and shows how to design IML property descriptors. These descriptors are IML methods that provide insight not just into the model, but also into the properties of the phenomenon the model is designed to represent. We argue that IML is necessary for scientific inference with ML models because their elements do not individually represent phenomenon properties; instead, the model in its entirety does. However, current IML research often conflates two goals of model analysis -- model audit and scientific inference -- making it unclear which model interpretations can be used to learn about phenomena. Building on statistical decision theory, we show that IML property descriptors applied on a model provide access to relevant aspects of the joint probability distribution of the data. We identify what questions such descriptors can address, provide a guide to building appropriate descriptors and quantify their epistemic uncertainty.

Later in this article we include an extensive discussion about best practices for this IML workflow to flesh out the taxonomy and deliver rigorously tested diagnostics to consumers. Ultimately, there could be an increasingly complete taxonomy that allows consumers (C) to find suitable IML methods for their use cases and helps researchers (R) to ground their technical work in real applications (as seen on the right side of Figure 2). For instance, the accompanying table highlights concrete examples of how three different potential diagnostics, each corresponding to different types of IML methods (local feature attribution, local counterfactual, and global counterfactual, respectively), may provide useful insights for three use cases. In particular, the computer vision use case from the table is expanded upon as a running example. An increasingly diverse set of methods has been recently proposed and broadly classified as part of IML. Multiple concerns have been expressed, however, in light of this rapid development, focused on IML's underlying foundations and the gap between research and practice.

Explainable AI (XAI) is a necessity in safety-critical systems such as in clinical diagnostics due to a high risk for fatal decisions. Currently, however, XAI resembles a loose collection of methods rather than a well-defined process. In this work, we elaborate on conceptual similarities between the largest subgroup of XAI, interpretable machine learning (IML), and classical statistics. Based on these similarities, we present a formalization of IML along the lines of a statistical process. Adopting this statistical view allows us to interpret machine learning models and IML methods as sophisticated statistical tools. Based on this interpretation, we infer three key questions, which we identify as crucial for the success and adoption of IML in safety-critical settings. By formulating these questions, we further aim to spark a discussion about what distinguishes IML from classical statistics and what our perspective implies for the future of the field.

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead.

We present a brief history of the field of interpretable machine learning (IML), give an overview of state-of-the-art interpretation methods, and discuss challenges. Research in IML has boomed in recent years. As young as the field is, it has over 200 years old roots in regression modeling and rule-based machine learning, starting in the 1960s. Recently, many new IML methods have been proposed, many of them model-agnostic, but also interpretation techniques specific to deep learning and tree-based ensembles. IML methods either directly analyze model components, study sensitivity to input perturbations, or analyze local or global surrogate approximations of the ML model.

We present a brief history of the field of interpretable machine learning (IML), give an overview of state-of-the-art interpretation methods, and discuss challenges. Research in IML has boomed in recent years. As young as the field is, it has over 200 years old roots in regression modeling and rule-based machine learning, starting in the 1960s. Recently, many new IML methods have been proposed, many of them model-agnostic, but also interpretation techniques specific to deep learning and tree-based ensembles. IML methods either directly analyze model components, study sensitivity to input perturbations, or analyze local or global surrogate approximations of the ML model. The field approaches a state of readiness and stability, with many methods not only proposed in research, but also implemented in open-source software. But many important challenges remain for IML, such as dealing with dependent features, causal interpretation, and uncertainty estimation, which need to be resolved for its successful application to scientific problems. A further challenge is a missing rigorous definition of interpretability, which is accepted by the community. To address the challenges and advance the field, we urge to recall our roots of interpretable, data-driven modeling in statistics and (rule-based) ML, but also to consider other areas such as sensitivity analysis, causal inference, and the social sciences.

In real-world applications, not all instances in multi-view data are fully represented. To deal with incomplete multi-view data, traditional multi-view algorithms usually throw away the incomplete instances, resulting in loss of available information. To overcome this loss, Incomplete Multi-view Learning (IML) has become a hot research topic. In this paper, we propose a general IML framework for unifying existing IML methods and gaining insight into IML. The proposed framework jointly performs embedding learning and low-rank approximation. Concretely, it approximates the incomplete data by a set of low-rank matrices and learns a full and common embedding by linear transformation. Several existing IML methods can be unified as special cases of the framework. More interestingly, some linear transformation based full-view methods can be adapted to IML directly with the guidance of the framework. This bridges the gap between full multi-view learning and IML. Moreover, the framework can provide guidance for developing new algorithms. For illustration, within the framework, we propose a specific method, termed as Incomplete Multi-view Learning with Block Diagonal Representation (IML-BDR). Based on the assumption that the sampled examples have approximate linear subspace structure, IML-BDR uses the block diagonal structure prior to learn the full embedding, which would lead to more correct clustering. A convergent alternating iterative algorithm with the Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR) optimization technique is devised for optimization. Experimental results on various datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of IML-BDR.