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.

Position Paper: Towards Transparent Machine Learning

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

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

Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning

"I had a solid theory before but it's falling apart": Polarizing Effects of Algorithmic Transparency

Audit, Don't Explain -- Recommendations Based on a Socio-Technical Understanding of ML-Based Systems

What Are You Hiding? Algorithmic Transparency and User Perceptions

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

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

Balancing Transparency and Risk: The Security and Privacy Risks of Open-Source Machine Learning Models

Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: A reality rooted perspective

Towards the Science of Security and Privacy in Machine Learning

Transparent human - (non-) transparent technology? The Janus-faced call for transparency in AI-based health care technologies

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

How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms

A Turing Test for Transparency

An Overview of Privacy in Machine Learning

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

Transparency as design publicity: explaining and justifying inscrutable algorithms

Law and Adversarial Machine Learning

Building Trust: Foundations of Security, Safety and Transparency in AI