What Makes a Good Explanation?: A Harmonized View of Properties of Explanations

Overview

• The paper discusses the importance of interpretability in machine learning (ML) models, particularly in situations where tasks cannot be fully automated.
• It highlights the lack of standardization in the properties of explanations provided by ML models, which makes it difficult to compare different interpretable ML methods and identify the appropriate properties for different contexts.
• The paper aims to survey the properties defined in interpretable ML literature, synthesize them based on what they actually measure, and describe the trade-offs between different formulations of these properties.

Plain English Explanation

Interpretability in machine learning (ML) is the ability to understand how an ML model arrives at its predictions or decisions. This is important in situations where the task cannot be fully automated and human involvement is still required, such as an early cardiac arrest warning system or a loan application process.

However, there is a lack of standardization in the way these interpretable explanations are defined and measured. Different papers may use the same term to mean different things, or different terms to describe the same concept. This makes it difficult to compare different interpretable ML methods and to determine which properties are most important for a given context.

To address this issue, the paper surveys the properties of explanations that have been defined in the interpretable ML literature, and then synthesizes them based on what they actually measure. It also describes the trade-offs between different formulations of these properties. This work helps researchers and practitioners select the appropriate explanation properties for their specific task and context, and also lays the groundwork for standardizing the terminology and evaluation of interpretable ML methods in the future.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by highlighting the importance of interpretability in machine learning (ML) models, particularly in situations where the task cannot be fully automated and human involvement is still required. It provides examples of different contexts, such as an early cardiac arrest warning system and a loan application process, where the type of explanation required can vary significantly.

The researchers then identify the lack of standardization in the properties of explanations provided by ML models. They note that different papers may use the same term to mean different quantities, and different terms to mean the same quantity. This lack of a standardized terminology and categorization of the properties of ML explanations prevents researchers from both rigorously comparing interpretable machine learning methods and identifying what properties are needed in what contexts.

To address this issue, the paper surveys the properties defined in interpretable machine learning papers, synthesizes them based on what they actually measure, and describes the trade-offs between different formulations of these properties. The researchers categorize the properties into several groups, such as fidelity, complexity, and robustness, and discuss the nuances and trade-offs within each category.

By providing this synthesis and analysis, the paper enables more informed selection of task-appropriate formulations of explanation properties, as well as standardization for future work in interpretable machine learning. This can help researchers and practitioners choose the most appropriate explanation properties for their specific use case and compare different interpretable ML methods more effectively.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a thorough and well-researched survey of the properties of explanations in interpretable machine learning. However, it is important to note that the lack of standardization in this field is a complex issue, and the paper does not claim to provide a complete solution.

One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on the technical properties of explanations, without delving deeply into the human factors and contextual considerations that may also be crucial in determining the appropriate form of explanation. For example, the paper does not address how the educational background, cognitive abilities, or cultural assumptions of the human users might influence their understanding and preferences for different types of explanations.

Additionally, the paper does not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of different explanation properties in improving human-AI collaboration or decision-making. While it discusses the trade-offs between various properties, more empirical research may be needed to understand the real-world implications of these trade-offs and to identify the most critical properties for different tasks and contexts.

Despite these limitations, the paper makes a valuable contribution by critically assessing the current state of interpretable and explainable machine learning and providing a foundation for future work in standardizing the terminology and evaluation of these important concepts.

Conclusion

This paper addresses a critical issue in the field of interpretable machine learning: the lack of standardization in the properties of explanations provided by ML models. By surveying the existing literature, synthesizing the properties based on what they actually measure, and describing the trade-offs between different formulations, the researchers have taken an important step towards enabling more informed selection of task-appropriate explanation properties and standardizing the terminology and evaluation of interpretable ML methods.

This work has significant implications for the development and deployment of ML systems in a wide range of applications, particularly those that involve human-AI collaboration and decision-making. By ensuring that the explanations provided by ML models are appropriate and understandable, the paper lays the groundwork for enhancing trust, transparency, and collaboration between humans and AI systems.