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

被引:3757
作者
Rudin, Cynthia [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Durham, NC 27708 USA
关键词
RECIDIVISM; CAPACITY;
D O I
10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Black box machine learning models are currently being used for high-stakes decision making throughout society, causing problems in healthcare, criminal justice and other domains. Some people hope that creating methods for explaining these black box models will alleviate some of the problems, but trying to explain black box models, rather than creating models that are interpretable in the first place, is likely to perpetuate bad practice and can potentially cause great harm to society. The way forward is to design models that are inherently interpretable. This Perspective clarifies the chasm between explaining black boxes and using inherently interpretable models, outlines several key reasons why explainable black boxes should be avoided in high-stakes decisions, identifies challenges to interpretable machine learning, and provides several example applications where interpretable models could potentially replace black box models in criminal justice, healthcare and computer vision. There has been a recent rise of interest in developing methods for 'explainable AI', where models are created to explain how a first 'black box' machine learning model arrives at a specific decision. It can be argued that instead efforts should be directed at building inherently interpretable models in the first place, in particular where they are applied in applications that directly affect human lives, such as in healthcare and criminal justice.
引用
收藏
页码:206 / 215
页数:10
相关论文
共 52 条
  • [41] Rudin C., 2018, P NEURIPS 2018 WORKS
  • [42] A process for predicting manhole events in Manhattan
    Rudin, Cynthia
    Passonneau, Rebecca J.
    Radeva, Axinia
    Dutta, Haimonti
    Ierome, Steve
    Isaac, Delfina
    [J]. MACHINE LEARNING, 2010, 80 (01) : 1 - 31
  • [43] Sokolovska N., 2018, P INT C ART INT STAT, P566
  • [44] Which method predicts recidivism best?: a comparison of statistical, machine learning and data mining predictive models
    Tollenaar, N.
    van der Heijden, P. G. M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2013, 176 (02) : 565 - 584
  • [45] The World Health Organization Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Self-Report Screening Scale for DSM-5
    Ustun, Berk
    Adler, Lenard A.
    Rudin, Cynthia
    Faraone, Stephen V.
    Spencer, Thomas J.
    Berglund, Patricia
    Gruber, Michael J.
    Kessler, Ronald C.
    [J]. JAMA PSYCHIATRY, 2017, 74 (05) : 520 - 526
  • [46] Varshney KR, 2016, BIG DATA, V10, P5
  • [47] Modeling recovery curves with application to prostatectomy
    Wang, Fulton
    Rudin, Cynthia
    Mccormick, Tyler H.
    Gore, John L.
    [J]. BIOSTATISTICS, 2019, 20 (04) : 549 - 564
  • [48] Wang F, 2015, JMLR WORKSH CONF PRO, V38, P1013
  • [49] Learning Credible Models
    Wang, Jiaxuan
    Oh, Jeeheh
    Wang, Haozhu
    Wiens, Jenna
    [J]. KDD'18: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 24TH ACM SIGKDD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY & DATA MINING, 2018, : 2417 - 2426
  • [50] Wexler R., 2017, NY Times13, P27