Abstract:We developed a novel machine learning (ML) algorithm with the goal of producing transparent models (i.e., understandable by humans) while also flexibly accounting for nonlinearity and interactions. Our method is based on ranked sparsity, and it allows for flexibility and user control in varying the shade of the opacity of black box machine learning methods. The main tenet of ranked sparsity is that an algorithm should be more skeptical of higher-order polynomials and interactions a priori compared to main effects, and hence, the inclusion of these more complex terms should require a higher level of evidence. In this work, we put our new ranked sparsity algorithm (as implemented in the open source R package, sparseR) to the test in a predictive model "bakeoff" (i.e., a benchmarking study of ML algorithms applied "out of the box", that is, with no special tuning). Algorithms were trained on a large set of simulated and real-world data sets from the Penn Machine Learning Benchmarks database, addressing both regression and binary classification problems. We evaluated the extent to which our human-centered algorithm can attain predictive accuracy that rivals popular black box approaches such as neural networks, random forests, and support vector machines, while also producing more interpretable models. Using out-of-bag error as a meta-outcome, we describe the properties of data sets in which human-centered approaches can perform as well as or better than black box approaches. We found that interpretable approaches predicted optimally or within 5% of the optimal method in most real-world data sets. We provide a more in-depth comparison of the performances of random forests to interpretable methods for several case studies, including exemplars in which algorithms performed similarly, and several cases when interpretable methods underperformed. This work provides a strong rationale for including human-centered transparent algorithms such as ours in predictive modeling applications.

Optimized Scoring Systems: Toward Trust in Machine Learning for Healthcare and Criminal Justice

"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations

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

Transparency, Auditability and eXplainability of Machine Learning Models in Credit Scoring

Algorithms for interpretable machine learning

Why black box machine learning should be avoided for high-stakes decisions, in brief

Can a Transparent Machine Learning Algorithm Predict Better than Its Black Box Counterparts? A Benchmarking Study Using 110 Data Sets

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment

Facing the Challenges of Developing Fair Risk Scoring Models

Learning Optimized Risk Scores

Towards algorithms and models that we can trust: A theoretical perspective

(Un)fairness in Post-operative Complication Prediction Models

Mathematical Algorithm Design for Deep Learning under Societal and Judicial Constraints: The Algorithmic Transparency Requirement

Trusting AI made decisions in healthcare by making them explainable

Modeling Mistrust in End-of-Life Care

"The Human Body is a Black Box": Supporting Clinical Decision-Making with Deep Learning

Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why We Do Not Trust AI

Fairer and more accurate, but for whom?

In Pursuit of Interpretable, Fair and Accurate Machine Learning for Criminal Recidivism Prediction

A Case Study on a Sustainable Framework for Ethically Aware Predictive Modeling

Almost Politically Acceptable Criminal Justice Risk Assessment