The Rashomon effect describes the observation that in machine learning (ML) multiple models often achieve similar predictive performance while explaining the underlying relationships in different ways. This observation holds even for intrinsically interpretable models, such as Generalized Additive Models (GAMs), which offer users valuable insights into the model's behavior. Given the existence of multiple GAM configurations with similar predictive performance, a natural question is whether we can personalize these configurations based on users' needs for interpretability. In our study, we developed an approach to personalize models based on contextual bandits. In an online experiment with 108 users in a personalized treatment and a non-personalized control group, we found that personalization led to individualized rather than one-size-fits-all configurations. Despite these individual adjustments, the interpretability remained high across both groups, with users reporting a strong understanding of the models. Our research offers initial insights into the potential for personalizing interpretable ML.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently based largely on black-box machine learning models which lack interpretability. The field of eXplainable AI (XAI) strives to address this major concern, being critical in high-stakes areas such as the finance, legal and health sectors. We present an approach to defining AI models and their interpretability based on category theory. For this we employ the notion of a compositional model, which sees a model in terms of formal string diagrams which capture its abstract structure together with its concrete implementation. This comprehensive view incorporates deterministic, probabilistic and quantum models. We compare a wide range of AI models as compositional models, including linear and rule-based models, (recurrent) neural networks, transformers, VAEs, and causal and DisCoCirc models. Next we give a definition of interpretation of a model in terms of its compositional structure, demonstrating how to analyse the interpretability of a model, and using this to clarify common themes in XAI. We find that what makes the standard 'intrinsically interpretable' models so transparent is brought out most clearly diagrammatically. This leads us to the more general notion of compositionally-interpretable (CI) models, which additionally include, for instance, causal, conceptual space, and DisCoCirc models. We next demonstrate the explainability benefits of CI models. Firstly, their compositional structure may allow the computation of other quantities of interest, and may facilitate inference from the model to the modelled phenomenon by matching its structure. Secondly, they allow for diagrammatic explanations for their behaviour, based on influence constraints, diagram surgery and rewrite explanations. Finally, we discuss many future directions for the approach, raising the question of how to learn such meaningfully structured models in practice.

"Explainable AI (XAI) is a set of methods aimed at making increasingly complex Machine Learning (ML) models understandable by humans". That's how I defined XAI in a previous post where I argued that XAI is both important and extremely difficult to automate. In a nutshell, XAI is crucial for building trust and understanding with (often non-technical) end-users. This empowers the user to actively use and adapt the system. The goal is to create ML-systems with maximal benefits and minimal accidental misuse.