Explainability

XAIexplainable AIpost-hoc explanation
the idea

The effort to account for what an opaque machine-learning model does after it has done it, usually by fitting a second, simpler method that approximates the original near a given prediction. The model itself stays a closed box; the explanation is added on top rather than built in. This contrasts with making a model understandable from the start, where the system is constrained to be readable in the first place.

The project of producing an account of a black-box model's outputs after the fact — typically through a second, simpler model or method that approximates the original locally — without making the model itself transparent. The founding general-purpose method is Ribeiro, Singh and Guestrin's LIME (2016). Distinguished from interpretability, which constrains the model to be understandable from the start.

Explainability is the post-hoc pole of the machine debate: keep the model, add an explanation. LIME fits a sparse linear surrogate in the neighbourhood of a single prediction to report which features pushed it; SHAP and a large secondary literature followed the same model-agnostic move. The legal counterpart is the counterfactual explanation, which accounts for a decision "without opening the black box."

The standing objection is Rudin's: an explanation is a separate model that can disagree with the thing it explains, which makes it the wrong instrument for consequential decisions. The deeper worry is faithfulness — whether the explanation reflects the model's actual computation — which Turpin and colleagues showed can fail for the step-by-step reasoning of language models. Miller argues the field has built explanations from engineers' intuitions rather than from the study of how people explain to one another.

Discussed in§

you are here in the territory

4 direct·5 two hops·14 further·46 off-graphopen the full territory →