Machine learning models have had discernible achievements in a myriad of applications. However, most of these models are black-boxes, and it is obscure how the decisions are made by them. This makes the models unreliable and untrustworthy. To provide insights into the decision making processes of these models, a variety of traditional interpretable models have been proposed. Moreover, to generate more humanfriendly explanations, recent work on interpretability tries to answer questions related to causality such as "Why does this model makes such decisions?" or "Was it a specific feature that caused the decision made by the model?". In this work, models that aim to answer causal questions are referred to as causal interpretable models. The existing surveys have covered concepts and methodologies of traditional interpretability. In this work, we present a comprehensive survey on causal interpretable models from the aspects of the problems and methods. In addition, this survey provides in-depth insights into the existing evaluation metrics for measuring interpretability, which can help practitioners understand for what scenarios each evaluation metric is suitable.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Networked observational data presents new opportunities for learning individual causal effects, which plays an indispensable role in decision making. Such data poses the challenge of confounding bias. Previous work presents two desiderata to handle confounding bias. On the treatment group level, we aim to balance the distributions of confounder representations. On the individual level, it is desirable to capture patterns of hidden confounders that predict treatment assignments. Existing methods show the potential of utilizing network information to handle confounding bias, but they only try to satisfy one of the two desiderata. This is because the two desiderata seem to contradict each other. When the two distributions of confounder representations are highly overlapped, then we confront the undiscriminating problem between the treated and the controlled. In this work, we formulate the two desiderata as a minimax game. We propose IGNITE that learns representations of confounders from networked observational data, which is trained by a minimax game to achieve the two desiderata. Experiments verify the efficacy of IGNITE on two datasets under various settings.