Zachary C. Lipton
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Supervised machine-learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world?
- Athey, S., Imbens, G. W. 2015 Machine-learning methods https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01132v1 (see also ref. 7).Google Scholar
- Caruana, R., Kangarloo, H., Dionisio, J. D, Sinha, U., Johnson, D. 1999. Case-based explanation of non-case- based learning methods. In Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Symposium: 212-215.Google Scholar
- Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., Elhadad, N. 2015. Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1721-1730. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J. L., Blei, D. M. 2009. Reading tea leaves: how humans interpret topic models. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 288-296. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Doshi-Velez, F., Wallace, B., Adams, R. 2015. Graph- sparse lDA: a topic model with structured sparsity. In Proceedings of the 29th Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Conference, 2575-2581. Google ScholarDigital Library
- FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation). 2011. Introduction to model builder scorecard; http://www.fico.com/en/latest-thinking/white-papers/introduction-to-model-builder-scorecard.Google Scholar
- Goodman, B., Flaxman, S. 2016. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation." https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813v3.Google Scholar
- Huysmans, J., Dejaeger, K., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J., Baesens, B. 2011. An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree- and rule- based predictive models. Journal of Decision Support Systems 51(1), 141-154. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, B. 2015. Interactive and interpretable machine- learning models for human-machine collaboration. Ph.D. thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Kim, B., Rudin, C., Shah, J. A. 2014. The Bayesian case model: A generative approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 2, 1952-1960. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, B., Glassman, E., Johnson, B., Shah, J. 2015. iBCM: Interactive Bayesian case model empowering humans via intuitive interaction. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Krening, S., Harrison, B., Feigh, K., Isbell, C., Riedl, M., Thomaz, A. 2017. Learning from explanations using sentiment and advice in RL. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 9(1), 41-55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lipton, Z. C., Kale, D. C., Wetzel, R. 2016. Modeling missing data in clinical time series with RNNs. In Proceedings of Machine Learning for Healthcare.Google Scholar
- Liu, C., Rani, P., Sarkar, N. 2006. An empirical study of machine-learning techniques for affect recognition in human-robot interaction. Pattern Analysis and Applications 9(1): 58-69. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lou, Y., Caruana, R., Gehrke, J. 2012. Intelligible models for classification and regression. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 150-158. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lou, Y., Caruana, R., Gehrke, J., Hooker, G. 2013. Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 623-631. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mahendran, A., Vedaldi, A. 2015. Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 1-9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McAuley, J., Leskovec, J. 2013. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 165-172. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., Dean, J. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 2, 3111?3119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mordvintsev, A., Olah, C., Tyka, M. 2015. Inceptionism: going deeper into neural networks. Google AI Blog; https://ai.googleblog.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html.Google Scholar
- Mounk, Y. 2014. Is Harvard unfair to Asian-Americans? New York Times (Nov. 24); http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/is-harvard-unfair-to-asian-americans.html.Google Scholar
- Pearl, J. 2009. Causality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., Guestrin, C. 2016. "Why should I trust you?": explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135-1144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ridgeway, G., Madigan, D., Richardson, T., O'Kane, J. 1998. Interpretable boosted naïve Bayes classification. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 101-104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., Zisserman, A. 2013. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6034 (see notes to refs 1, 7).Google Scholar
- Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., Fergus, R. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199 (see refs 1, 7, 25).Google Scholar
- Tibshirani, R. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 58(1), 267-288.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Van der Maaten, L., Hinton, G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 2579-2605.Google Scholar
- Wang, H.-X., Fratiglioni, L., Frisoni, G. B., Viitanen, M., Winblad, B. 1999. Smoking and the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease: cross-sectional and longitudinal data in a population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology 149(7), 640-644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang, Z., Freitas, N., Lanctot, M. 2016. Dueling network architectures for deep reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning 48, 1995-2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Interpretability assessment of fuzzy knowledge bases
Computing with words (CWW) relies on linguistic representation of knowledge that is processed by operating at the semantical level defined through fuzzy sets. Linguistic representation of knowledge is a major issue when fuzzy rule based models are ...
Low-level interpretability and high-level interpretability: a unified view of data-driven interpretable fuzzy system modelling
This paper aims at providing an in-depth overview of designing interpretable fuzzy inference models from data within a unified framework. The objective of complex system modelling is to develop reliable and understandable models for human being to get ...
Improving the interpretability of classification rules discovered by an ant colony algorithm
GECCO '13: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationThe vast majority of Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithms for inducing classification rules use an ACO-based procedure to create a rule in an one-at-a-time fashion. An improved search strategy has been proposed in the cAnt-MinerPB algorithm, where ...
Comments