As neural networks become dominant in essential systems, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in fostering trust and detecting potential misbehavior of opaque models. LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) is among the most prominent model-agnostic approaches, generating explanations by approximating the behavior of black-box models around specific instances. Despite its popularity, LIME faces challenges related to fidelity, stability, and applicability to domain-specific problems. Numerous adaptations and enhancements have been proposed to address these issues, but the growing number of developments can be overwhelming, complicating efforts to navigate LIME-related research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey to comprehensively explore and collect LIME's foundational concepts and known limitations. We categorize and compare its various enhancements, offering a structured taxonomy based on intermediate steps and key issues. Our analysis provides a holistic overview of advancements in LIME, guiding future research and helping practitioners identify suitable approaches. Additionally, we provide a continuously updated interactive website (https://patrick-knab.github.io/which-lime-to-trust/), offering a concise and accessible overview of the survey.

Neural networks are widely regarded as black-box models, creating significant challenges in understanding their inner workings, especially in natural language processing (NLP) applications. To address this opacity, model explanation techniques like Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) have emerged as essential tools for providing insights into the behavior of these complex systems. This study leverages LIME to interpret a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network trained on a text classification task. By analyzing the contribution of individual features to model predictions, the LIME approach enhances interpretability and supports informed decision-making. Despite its effectiveness in offering localized explanations, LIME has limitations in capturing global patterns and feature interactions. This research highlights the strengths and shortcomings of LIME and proposes directions for future work to achieve more comprehensive interpretability in neural NLP models.

Machine learning models are often used to automate or support decisions in applications such as lending and hiring. In such settings, consumer protection rules mandate that we provide a list of "principal reasons" to consumers who receive adverse decisions. In practice, lenders and employers identify principal reasons by returning the top-scoring features from a feature attribution method. In this work, we study how such practices align with one of the underlying goals of consumer protection - recourse - i.e., educating individuals on how they can attain a desired outcome. We show that standard attribution methods can mislead individuals by highlighting reasons without recourse - i.e., by presenting consumers with features that cannot be changed to achieve recourse. We propose to address these issues by scoring features on the basis of responsiveness - i.e., the probability that an individual can attain a desired outcome by changing a specific feature. We develop efficient methods to compute responsiveness scores for any model and any dataset under complex actionability constraints. We present an extensive empirical study on the responsiveness of explanations in lending and demonstrate how responsiveness scores can be used to construct feature-highlighting explanations that lead to recourse and mitigate harm by flagging instances with fixed predictions.

Local explanation methods such as LIME have become popular in MIR as tools for generating post-hoc, model-agnostic explanations of a model's classification decisions. The basic idea is to identify a small set of human-understandable features of the classified example that are most influential on the classifier's prediction. These are then presented as an explanation. Evaluation of such explanations in publications often resorts to accepting what matches the expectation of a human without actually being able to verify if what the explanation shows is what really caused the model's prediction. This paper reports on targeted investigations where we try to get more insight into the actual veracity of LIME's explanations in an audio classification task. We deliberately design adversarial examples for the classifier, in a way that gives us knowledge about which parts of the input are potentially responsible for the model's (wrong) prediction. Asking LIME to explain the predictions for these adversaries permits us to study whether local explanations do indeed detect these regions of interest. We also look at whether LIME is more successful in finding perturbations that are more prominent and easily noticeable for a human. Our results suggest that LIME does not necessarily manage to identify the most relevant input features and hence it remains unclear whether explanations are useful or even misleading.

With the wide adoption of black-box models, instance-based \emph{post hoc} explanation tools, such as LIME and SHAP became increasingly popular. These tools produce explanations, pinpointing contributions of key features associated with a given prediction. However, the obtained explanations remain at the raw feature level and are not necessarily understandable by a human expert without extensive domain knowledge. We propose ReEx (Reasoning with Explanations), a method applicable to explanations generated by arbitrary instance-level explainers, such as SHAP. By using background knowledge in the form of ontologies, ReEx generalizes instance explanations in a least general generalization-like manner. The resulting symbolic descriptions are specific for individual classes and offer generalizations based on the explainer's output. The derived semantic explanations are potentially more informative, as they describe the key attributes in the context of more general background knowledge, e.g., at the biological process level. We showcase ReEx's performance on nine biological data sets, showing that compact, semantic explanations can be obtained and are more informative than generic ontology mappings that link terms directly to feature names. ReEx is offered as a simple-to-use Python library and is compatible with tools such as SHAP and similar. To our knowledge, this is one of the first methods that directly couples semantic reasoning with contemporary model explanation methods. This paper is a preprint. Full version's doi is: 10.1109/SAMI50585.2021.9378668

Recent work in model-agnostic explanations of black-box machine learning has demonstrated that interpretability of complex models does not have to come at the cost of accuracy or model flexibility. However, it is not clear what kind of explanations, such as linear models, decision trees, and rule lists, are the appropriate family to consider, and different tasks and models may benefit from different kinds of explanations. Instead of picking a single family of representations, in this work we propose to use "programs" as model-agnostic explanations. We show that small programs can be expressive yet intuitive as explanations, and generalize over a number of existing interpretable families. We propose a prototype program induction method based on simulated annealing that approximates the local behavior of black-box classifiers around a specific prediction using random perturbations. Finally, we present preliminary application on small datasets and show that the generated explanations are intuitive and accurate for a number of classifiers.

At the core of interpretable machine learning is the question of whether humans are able to make accurate predictions about a model's behavior. Assumed in this question are three properties of the interpretable output: coverage, precision, and effort. Coverage refers to how often humans think they can predict the model's behavior, precision to how accurate humans are in those predictions, and effort is either the upfront effort required in interpreting the model, or the effort required to make predictions about a model's behavior. One approach to interpretable machine learning is designing inherently interpretable models. Visualizations of these models usually have perfect coverage, but there is a tradeoff between the accuracy of the model and the effort required to comprehend it - especially in complex domains like text and images, where the input space is very large, and accuracy is usually sacrificed for models that are compact enough to be comprehensible by humans. Experiments usually involve showing humans these visualizations, and measuring human precision when predicting the model's behavior on random instances, and the time (effort) required to make those predictions [7, 8, 9]. Model-agnostic explanations [12] avoid the need to trade off accuracy by treating the model as a black box. Explanations such as sparse linear models [11] (henceforth called linear LIME) or gradients [2, 10] can still exhibit high precision and low effort (which are de-facto requirements, as there is little point in explaining a model if explanations lead to poor understanding or are too complex) even for very complex models by providing explanations that are local in their scope (i.e.

Understanding why machine learning models behave the way they do empowers both system designers and end-users in many ways: in model selection, feature engineering, in order to trust and act upon the predictions, and in more intuitive user interfaces. Thus, interpretability has become a vital concern in machine learning, and work in the area of interpretable models has found renewed interest. In some applications, such models are as accurate as non-interpretable ones, and thus are preferred for their transparency. Even when they are not accurate, they may still be preferred when interpretability is of paramount importance. However, restricting machine learning to interpretable models is often a severe limitation. In this paper we argue for explaining machine learning predictions using model-agnostic approaches. By treating the machine learning models as black-box functions, these approaches provide crucial flexibility in the choice of models, explanations, and representations, improving debugging, comparison, and interfaces for a variety of users and models. We also outline the main challenges for such methods, and review a recently-introduced model-agnostic explanation approach (LIME) that addresses these challenges.