Abstract:Although complex machine learning models (eg, random forest, neural networks) are commonly outperforming the traditional and simple interpretable models (eg, linear regression, decision tree), in the healthcare domain, clinicians find it hard to understand and trust these complex models due to the lack of intuition and explanation of their predictions. With the new general data protection regulation (GDPR), the importance for plausibility and verifiability of the predictions made by machine learning models has become essential. Hence, interpretability techniques for machine learning models are an area focus of research. In general, the main aim of these interpretability techniques is to shed light and provide insights into the prediction process of the machine learning models and to be able to explain how the results from the prediction was generated. A major problem in this context is that both the quality of the interpretability techniques and trust of the machine learning model predictions are challenging to measure. In this article, we propose four fundamental quantitative measures for assessing the quality of interpretability techniques—similarity, bias detection, execution time, and trust. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation of six recent and popular local model agnostic interpretability techniques, namely, LIME, SHAP, Anchors, LORE, ILIME" and MAPLE on different types of real‐world healthcare data. Building on previous work, our experimental evaluation covers different aspects for its comparison including identity, stability, separability, similarity, execution time, bias detection, and trust. The results of our experiments show that MAPLE achieves the highest performance for the identity across all data sets included in this study, while LIME achieves the lowest performance for the identity metric. LIME achieves the highest performance for the separability metric across all data sets. On average, SHAP has the smallest average time to output explanation across all data sets included in this study. For detecting the bias, SHAP and MAPLE enable the participants to better detect the bias. For the trust metric, Anchors achieves the highest performance on all data sets included in this work.

An Explanatory Strategy for Reducing the Risk of Privacy Leaks

Privacy Implications of Explainable AI in Data-Driven Systems

Model Interpretation and Explainability: Towards Creating Transparency in Prediction Models

Explanation Leaks: Explanation-guided Model Extraction Attacks

Interpretable and explainable machine learning: A methods‐centric overview with concrete examples

Interpretable Deep Learning Models: Enhancing Transparency and Trustworthiness in Explainable AI

The privacy-explainability trade-off: unraveling the impacts of differential privacy and federated learning on attribution methods

Explaining the Model, Protecting Your Data: Revealing and Mitigating the Data Privacy Risks of Post-Hoc Model Explanations via Membership Inference

Model Explanations with Differential Privacy

"Why Should You Trust My Explanation?" Understanding Uncertainty in LIME Explanations

Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning

Interpretability in healthcare: A comparative study of local machine learning interpretability techniques

Interpretability of machine learning‐based prediction models in healthcare

Towards Understanding Sensitive and Decisive Patterns in Explainable AI: A Case Study of Model Interpretation in Geometric Deep Learning

A Double Penalty Model for Interpretability

Privacy Meets Explainability: A Comprehensive Impact Benchmark

Interpretability and Transparency of Machine Learning in File Fragment Analysis with Explainable Artificial Intelligence

A Survey of Interpretable Machine Learning Methods

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead

Accurate, Explainable, and Private Models: Providing Recourse While Minimizing Training Data Leakage

Expl(AI)ned: The Impact of Explainable Artificial Intelligence on Users' Information Processing