The widespread adoption of black-box models in Artificial Intelligence has enhanced the need for explanation methods to reveal how these obscure models reach specific decisions. Retrieving explanations is fundamental to unveil possible biases and to resolve practical or ethical issues. Nowadays, the literature is full of methods with different explanations. We provide a categorization of explanation methods based on the type of explanation returned. We present the most recent and widely used explainers, and we show a visual comparison among explanations and a quantitative benchmarking.

The rise of sophisticated black-box machine learning models in Artificial Intelligence systems has prompted the need for explanation methods that reveal how these models work in an understandable way to users and decision makers. Unsurprisingly, the state-of-the-art exhibits currently a plethora of explainers providing many different types of explanations. With the aim of providing a compass for researchers and practitioners, this paper proposes a categorization of explanation methods from the perspective of the type of explanation they return, also considering the different input data formats. The paper accounts for the most representative explainers to date, also discussing similarities and discrepancies of returned explanations through their visual appearance. A companion website to the paper is provided as a continuous update to new explainers as they appear. Moreover, a subset of the most robust and widely adopted explainers, are benchmarked with respect to a repertoire of quantitative metrics.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure classification models that hide the logic of their internal decision processes. Explaining the decision taken by a black-box classifier on a specific input instance is therefore of striking interest. We propose a local rule-based model-agnostic explanation method providing stable and actionable explanations. An explanation consists of a factual logic rule, stating the reasons for the black-box decision, and a set of actionable counterfactual logic rules, proactively suggesting the changes in the instance that lead to a different outcome. Explanations are computed from a decision tree that mimics the behavior of the black-box locally to the instance to explain. The decision tree is obtained through a bagging-like approach that favors stability and fidelity: first, an ensemble of decision trees is learned from neighborhoods of the instance under investigation; then, the ensemble is merged into a single decision tree. Neighbor instances are synthetically generated through a genetic algorithm whose fitness function is driven by the black-box behavior. Experiments show that the proposed method advances the state-of-the-art towards a comprehensive approach that successfully covers stability and actionability of factual and counterfactual explanations.