On the Relationship Between Interpretability and Explainability in Machine Learning

Overview

• Interpretability and explainability are crucial in high-stakes machine learning decisions and troubleshooting.
• Interpretability and explainability are often seen as independent, leading to a divide in the literature.
• This paper challenges the idea that interpretability and explainability are substitutes, and instead argues they can complement each other.

Plain English Explanation

Machine learning models are being used to make important decisions in fields like healthcare and finance. However, it's often difficult to understand how these complex "black box" models arrive at their predictions. Interpretability and explainability are two related concepts that aim to provide insight into how these models work.

Interpretability refers to the ability to understand the internal logic of a model - for example, which features it is using to make its decisions. Explainability, on the other hand, is about providing post-hoc explanations for a model's outputs, such as highlighting the most important factors contributing to a particular prediction.

Traditionally, these two ideas have been seen as separate approaches. But this paper argues that interpretability and explainability actually complement each other and can be used together to better understand and debug machine learning systems. By leveraging the strengths of both, we can gain a more holistic picture of how these complex models work.

Technical Explanation

This paper challenges the common view that interpretability and explainability are substitutes for one another. The authors argue that while they are distinct concepts, they can in fact work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of machine learning models.

Interpretability refers to the ability to understand the internal logic and decision-making process of a model. This is often associated with simpler, more transparent "white box" models. Explainability, on the other hand, is about providing post-hoc explanations for the outputs of complex "black box" models, such as highlighting the most important factors contributing to a prediction.

The authors note that the literature on these topics has largely been dichotomous, with researchers focusing on either interpretability or explainability techniques. However, they posit that both perspectives are valuable and can in fact mitigate the shortcomings of the other.

For example, interpretable models may lack the predictive power of more complex black boxes. But explainability techniques can be used to shed light on how these black box models arrive at their predictions. Conversely, while explainability can provide insights into complex models, interpretability is still crucial for understanding the fundamental logic of a system.

The key contribution of this paper is to call for a new, more integrated perspective on interpretability and explainability. The authors argue that research targeting both topics simultaneously, leveraging the strengths of each, could lead to more robust and trustworthy machine learning systems.

Critical Analysis

The authors make a compelling case for why interpretability and explainability should be viewed as complementary rather than competing concepts. By highlighting the limitations of addressing them in isolation, they make a strong argument for a more holistic approach.

That said, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific methods or techniques for achieving this integration. While the high-level idea is clear, more details on how to practically combine interpretability and explainability techniques would have strengthened the paper.

Additionally, the authors could have explored some potential challenges or trade-offs in trying to balance these two objectives. For instance, achieving a high degree of interpretability may come at the cost of model performance, which explainability techniques would then need to reconcile.

Overall, this is a thought-provoking position paper that successfully challenges the prevailing dichotomy in the field. By encouraging researchers to think more expansively about interpretability and explainability, the authors open the door for more innovative approaches to understanding and improving complex machine learning systems.

Conclusion

This paper makes a compelling case for a more integrated approach to interpretability and explainability in machine learning. By highlighting how these two concepts can work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of model behavior, the authors offer a new perspective that could lead to more robust and trustworthy AI systems.

As machine learning becomes increasingly influential in high-stakes decision-making, the need for interpretable and explainable models will only grow. This paper lays the groundwork for future research that simultaneously addresses both interpretability and explainability, leveraging the unique strengths of each to advance the field as a whole.