An increasing number of model-agnostic interpretation techniques for machine learning (ML) models such as partial dependence plots (PDP), permutation feature importance (PFI) and Shapley values provide insightful model interpretations, but can lead to wrong conclusions if applied incorrectly. We highlight many general pitfalls of ML model interpretation, such as using interpretation techniques in the wrong context, interpreting models that do not generalize well, ignoring feature dependencies, interactions, uncertainty estimates and issues in high-dimensional settings, or making unjustified causal interpretations, and illustrate them with examples. We focus on pitfalls for global methods that describe the average model behavior, but many pitfalls also apply to local methods that explain individual predictions. Our paper addresses ML practitioners by raising awareness of pitfalls and identifying solutions for correct model interpretation, but also addresses ML researchers by discussing open issues for further research.

Model-agnostic interpretation techniques allow us to explain the behavior of any predictive model. Due to different notations and terminology, it is difficult to see how they are related. A unified view on these methods has been missing. We present the generalized SIPA (sampling, intervention, prediction, aggregation) framework of work stages for model-agnostic interpretations and demonstrate how several prominent methods for feature effects can be embedded into the proposed framework. Furthermore, we extend the framework to feature importance computations by pointing out how variance-based and performance-based importance measures are based on the same work stages. The SIPA framework reduces the diverse set of model-agnostic techniques to a single methodology and establishes a common terminology to discuss them in future work.

No abstract

Beta coefficients for linear regression models represent the ideal form of an interpretable feature effect. However, for non-linear models and especially generalized linear models, the estimated coefficients cannot be interpreted as a direct feature effect on the predicted outcome. Hence, marginal effects are typically used as approximations for feature effects, either in the shape of derivatives of the prediction function or forward differences in prediction due to a change in a feature value. While marginal effects are commonly used in many scientific fields, they have not yet been adopted as a modelagnostic interpretation method for machine learning models. This may stem from their inflexibility as a univariate feature effect and their inability to deal with the non-linearities found in black box models. We introduce a new class of marginal effects termed forward marginal effects. We argue to abandon derivatives in favor of better-interpretable forward differences. Furthermore, we generalize marginal effects based on forward differences to multivariate changes in feature values. To account for the non-linearity of prediction functions, we introduce a non-linearity measure for marginal effects. We argue against summarizing feature effects of a non-linear prediction function in a single metric such as the average marginal effect. Instead, we propose to partition the feature space to compute conditional average marginal effects on feature subspaces, which serve as conditional feature effect estimates. This work has been partially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant No. 01IS18036A. The authors of this work take full responsibilities for its content. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, specifically on structuring the paper, on the line integral for the non-linearity measure, and on the instabilities of decision trees.

No abstract