3 ms·
Yes, you are oversimplifying what is required to make a model explainable. The logical mechanism of the functional form of the model has very little to do with
by mlthoughts2018 7y ago
Yes, you are oversimplifying what is required to make a model explainable. The logical mechanism of the functional form of the model has very little to do with explainability. Explainability involves various kinds of model checking, overfitting analysis, tests for confounding variables, multicollinearity, interaction effects, model misspecification, etc.
Merely decomposing a prediction into say a linear combination of predictors does not, itself, provide any type of explanation unless a variety of more complicated assumptions about statistical model checking turn out to be true.
Even worse, because the naive approach is to just treat those regression coefficients as if they do automatically give explanatory power or feature-wise attribution, people misrepresent things unwittingly and don’t carry out enough robust model checking, leading to wrong explanations that appear to have deceptive degrees of confidence associated with them.
- perl4ever 7y ago"The logical mechanism of the functional form of the model has very little to do with explainability" I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing, or which of the three sources in my comment you are reacting to. My understanding of "explainability" in this context is that it means "humans can understand why the model gives a certain prediction". It seems like you are using it to mean "humans can understand why the thing modeled does something (presumably by referring to the model)". That isn't what I thought people meant by the term, nor does it seem like a reasonable goal to me. Do we agree these are distinct ideas? Feel free to elaborate on where I've gone wrong.