What do we mean with interpretable?
There are several reasons to make a “black box” machine learning model interpretable.
First, an interpretable output can be more readily understood and trusted by its users (for example, clinicians deciding whether to prescribe a treatment), making its outputs more actionable.
Second, a model’s outputs often need to be explained by its users to the subjects of its outputs (for example, patients deciding whether to accept a proposed treatment course).
Third, by uncovering valuable information that otherwise would have remained hidden within the model’s opaque inner workings, an interpretable output can empower users such as researchers with powerful new insights.
The value of interpretability as a broad concept is, therefore, clear. Yet despite this, the meaning of the term itself is too seldom discussed and too often oversimplified. There is no single “type” of interpretability, after all, since there are many potential ways to extract and present information from the output of a model, and many types of information to choose to extract.
Current Research Highlights
Our Research
Our lab has been researching interpretability methods and approaches (for application in healthcare and beyond) for many years. Our work so far has led us to a unique but powerful framework for considering the multiple types of interpretability.
Each of these types of interpretability represents a distinct set of challenges from a model development perspective and can benefit different users in a variety of applications.
Type 1 interpretability: feature importance
This type of interpretability involves identifying and showing which patient-specific features the machine learning model has considered when issuing a prediction for a patient. We can do this either by identifying features that are important for an entire population or by identifying features the model has considered specifically for the patient at hand.
Clinicians have explained to us that this type of interpretability would be particularly valuable to them: since they are required to work out the best way to treat a patient, it is helpful to understand the features that influenced a model’s output. By contrast, clinicians see the value of this type of interpretability for patients as lower. Patients may not consider it particularly useful to know the relative importance of their features: for example, a patient may not benefit from knowing that the most important features determining her cancer mortality risk are her age and ER status.
Type 2 interpretability: similarity classification
Through similarity classification, we seek to identify and explain which similar patients a machine learning model has provided the same–or different–predictions for. An approach based on similarity classification would involve cross-referencing the black box model’s prediction with available observational data regarding the features and outcomes of similar patients, and then explaining the model’s prediction in terms of those features and outcomes.
Several of our lab’s projects to date have sought to provide interpretable explanations based on similarity classification. Some—such as the two outlined immediately below—are tailor-made for particular medical problems.
Type 3 interpretability: transparent mathematical equations
With this type of interpretability, we seek to discover “rules” and “laws” learned by the machine model. These can be in the form of decision rules, or even “counterfactual” explanations in the form of “What if?” question-answer pairs that describe the smallest adjustment to the patient’s features that would change the model’s prediction to a predefined output. For example, a clinician could use this type of interpretability to establish the smallest difference in tumour size that would change the model’s prediction for a patient with cancer.
This approach to interpretability allows us to turn black box models into white boxes by generating transparent risk equations that describe the predictions made by machine learning models. Unlike regression models, this involves mapping non-linear interactions between different features. We can then discard the black box model, and rely on the transparent risk equation to issue predictions.
Find out more about how AI can empower researchers in our AI4Science Research Pillar.
Type 4 interpretability: concept-based explainability
Human beings tend to use high-level concepts to explain their decisions. The purpose of concept-based explainability is to extend this approach to neural networks. This type of explanation permits to analyse how the model relates high-level concepts defined by the user to its predictions. A typical example is an image classifier that identifies zebras through their stripes. In this example, “zebra” is the model’s prediction and “stripes” is a concept. Concepts can be defined arbitrarily by the user through relevant examples illustrating the concept.
Robust and trustworthy interpretations
All the interpretability techniques described above are useful only if they are faithful to the model they explain. Indeed, failing in this basic criterion implies that the explanations could be inconsistent with the true model behaviour, hence leading to false insights about the model. For this reason, we believe that guaranteeing an alignment between interpretability methods and the model is just as important as the interpretability methods themselves.



















