Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations for Stable Explainability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) is a popular technique used to increase the interpretability and explainability of black box Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. LIME typically creates an explanation for a single prediction by any ML model by learning a simpler interpretable model (e.g., linear classifier) around the prediction through generating simulated data around the instance by random perturbation, and obtaining feature importance through applying some form of feature selection. While LIME and similar local algorithms have gained popularity due to their simplicity, the random perturbation methods result in shifts in data and instability in the generated explanations, where for the same prediction, different explanations can be generated. These are critical issues that can prevent deployment of LIME in sensitive domains. We propose a deterministic version of LIME. Instead of random perturbation, we utilize Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) to group the training data together and K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) to select the relevant cluster of the new instance that is being explained. After finding the relevant cluster, a simple model (i.e., linear model or decision tree) is trained over the selected cluster to generate the explanations. Experimental results on six public (three binary and three multi-class) and six synthetic datasets show the superiority for Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (DLIME), where we quantitatively determine the stability and faithfulness of DLIME compared to LIME.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it