A Survey Of Methods
For Explaining Black Box Models
Riccardo Guidotti1,2 , Anna Monreale1 , Franco Turini1 , Dino Pedreschi1 , Fosca
Giannotti2
1

University of Pisa, {name.surname}@di.unipi.it
ISTI-CNR, Pisa, {name.surname}@isti.cnr.it

arXiv:1802.01933v2 [cs.CY] 19 Feb 2018

2

Abstract. In the last years many accurate decision support systems
have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their
internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a
practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches
aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness sometimes at the cost of scarifying accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box
decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a
consequence, delineating explicitly or implicitly its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this paper is to provide a
classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system.
Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation
this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open
black box models should also be useful for putting the many research
open questions in perspective.

Keywords: Open The Black Box, Explanations, Interpretability, Transparent
Models

1

Introduction

The last decade has witnessed the rise of ubiquitous opaque decision systems.
These black box systems exploit sophisticated machine learning models to predict individual information that may also be sensitive. We can consider credit
score, insurance risk, health status, as examples. Machine learning algorithms
build predictive models which are able to map user features into a class (outcome
or decision) thanks to a learning phase. This learning process is made possible
by the digital traces that people leave behind them while performing everyday
activities (e.g., movements, purchases, comments in social networks, etc.). This
enormous amount of data may contain human biases and prejudices. Thus, decision models learned on them may inherit such biases, possibly leading to unfair
and wrong decisions.

2

R. Guidotti et al.

The European Parliament recently adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will become law in May 2018. An innovative aspect of
the GDPR, which has been much debated, are the clauses on automated (algorithmic) individual decision-making, including profiling, which for the first time
introduce, to some extent, a right of explanation for all individuals to obtain
“meaningful explanations of the logic involved” when automated decision making takes place. Despite divergent opinions among legal scholars regarding the
real scope of these clauses [31,101,15], everybody agrees that the need for the
implementation of such a principle is urgent and that it represents today a huge
open scientific challenge. Without an enabling technology capable of explaining
the logic of black boxes, the right to an explanation will remain a “dead letter”.
By relying on sophisticated machine learning models trained on massive
datasets thanks to scalable, high-performance infrastructures, we risk to create and use decision systems that we do not really understand. This impacts not
only information on ethics, but also on safety and on industrial liability. Companies increasingly market services and products by embedding machine learning
components, often in safety-critical industries such as self-driving cars, robotic
assistants, and personalized medicine. Another inherent risk of these components
is the possibility of inadvertently making wrong decisions, learned from artifacts
or spurious correlations in the training data, such as recognizing an object in
a picture by the properties of the background or lighting, due to a systematic
bias in training data collection. How can companies trust their products without
understanding and validating the underlying rationale of their machine learning
components? Gartner predicts that “by 2018 half of business ethics violations
will occur through the improper use of Big Data analytics”. Explanation technologies are an immense help to companies for creating safer, more trustable
products, and better managing any possible liability they may have. Likewise,
the use of machine learning models in scientific research, for example in medicine,
biology, socio-economic sciences, requires an explanation not only for trust and
acceptance of results, but also for the sake of the openness of scientific discovery
and the progress of research.
As a consequence, explanation is at the heart of a responsible, open data
science, across multiple industry sectors and scientific disciplines. Different scientific communities studied the problem of explaining machine learning decision
models. However, each community addresses the problem from a different perspective and provides a different meaning to explanation. Most of the works in
the literature come from the machine learning and data mining communities.
The first one is mostly focused on describing how black boxes work, while the
second one is more interested in explaining the decisions even without understanding the details on how the opaque decision systems work in general.
Despite the fact that interpretable machine learning has been a topic for
quite some time and received recently much attention, today there are many
ad-hoc scattered results, and a systematic organization and classification of
these methodologies is missing. Many questions feed the papers in the literature proposing methodologies for interpreting black box systems [106,34]: What

Open The Black Box Survey

3

does it mean that a model is interpretable or transparent? What is an explanation? When a model or an explanation is comprehensible? Which is the best
way to provide an explanation and which kind of model is more interpretable?
Which are the problems requiring interpretable models/predictions? What kind
of decision data are affected? Which type of data records is more comprehensible? How much are we willing to lose in prediction accuracy to gain any form of
interpretability?
We believe that a clear classification considering simultaneously all these
aspects is needed to organize the body of knowledge about research investigating methodologies for opening and understanding the black box. Existing works
tend to provide just a general overview of the problem [59] highlighting unanswered questions and problems [24]. On the other hand, other works focus on
particular aspects like the impact of representation formats on comprehensibility [36], or the interpretability issues in term of advantages and disadvantages of
selected predictive models [27]. Consequently, after recognizing four categories
of problems and a set of ways to provide an explanation, we have chosen to
group the methodologies for opening and understanding black box predictors
by considering simultaneously the problem they are facing, the class of solutions
proposed for the explanation, the kind of data analyzed and the type of predictor
explained.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Firstly, in Section 3 we discuss
what interpretability is. Section 2 show which are the motivations for requiring
explanation for black box systems by illustrating some real cases. In Section 4
we formalize our problem definitions used to categorize the state of the art
works. Details of the classification and crucial points distinguishing the various
approaches and papers are discussed in Section 5. Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 present
the details of the solutions proposed. Finally, Section 10 summarizes the crucial
aspects emerged from the analysis of the state of the art and discusses which are
the open research questions and future research directions.

2

Needs for Interpretable Models

Which are the real problems requiring interpretable models and explainable predictions? In this section, we briefly report some cases showing how and why
black boxes can be dangerous. Indeed, delegating decisions to black boxes without the possibility of an interpretation may be critical, can create discrimination
and trust issues.
Training a classifier on historical datasets, reporting human decisions, could
lead to the discovery of endemic preconceptions [76]. Moreover, since these rules
can be deeply concealed within the trained classifier, we risk to consider, maybe
unconsciously, such practices and prejudices as general rules. We are warned
about a growing “black box society” [74], governed by “secret algorithms protected by industrial secrecy, legal protections, obfuscation, so that intentional or
unintentional discrimination becomes invisible and mitigation becomes impossible.”

4

R. Guidotti et al.

Automated discrimination is not new and is not necessarily due to “black
box” models. A computer program for screening job applicants were used during the 1970s and 1980s in St. George’s Hospital Medical School (London). The
program used information from applicants’ forms, without any reference to ethnicity. However, the program was found to unfairly discriminate against ethnic
minorities and women by inferring this information from surnames and place of
birth, and lowering their chances of being selected for interview [62].
More recently, the journalists of propublica.org have shown that the COMPAS
score, a predictive model for the “risk of crime recidivism” (proprietary secret of
Northpointe), has a strong ethnic bias. Indeed, according to this score, a black
who did not re-offend were classified as high risk twice as much as whites who
did not re-offend, and white repeat offenders were classified as low risk twice as
much as black repeat offenders3 .
Similarly, a study at Princeton [11] shows how text and web corpora contain
human biases: names that are associated with black people are found to be significantly more associated with unpleasant than with pleasant terms, compared
to names associated with whites. As a consequence, the models learned on such
text data for opinion or sentiment mining have a possibility of inheriting the
prejudices reflected in the data.
Another example is related to Amazon.com. In 2016, the software used to
determine the areas of the US to which Amazon would offer free same-day delivery, unintentionally restricted minority neighborhoods from participating in the
program (often when every surrounding neighborhood was allowed)4 .
With respect to credit bureaus, it is shown in [12] that banks providing credit
scoring for millions of individuals, are often discordant: in a study of 500, 000
records, 29% of consumers received credit scores that differed by at least fifty
points among three major US banks (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax). Such
a difference might mean tens of thousands of dollars over the life of a mortgage.
So much variability implies that the three scoring systems either have a very
different and undisclosed bias, or are highly arbitrary.
As example of bias we can consider [27] and [84]. In these works, the authors
show how accurate black box classifiers may result from an accidental artifact in
the training data. In [27] the military trained a classifier to recognize enemy tanks
from friendly tanks. The classifier resulted in a high accuracy on the test set, but
when it was used in the field had very poor performance. Later was discovered
that enemy photos were taken on overcast days, while friendly photos on sunny
days. Similarly, in [84] is shown that a classifier trained to recognize wolves and
husky dogs were basing its predictions to classify a wolf solely on the presence
of snow in the background.
Nowadays, Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have been reaching very good
performances on different pattern-recognition tasks such as visual and text classification which are easily performed by humans: e.g., saying that a tomato is
displaced in a picture or that a text is about a certain topic. Thus, what differ3
4

http://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
http://www.techinsider.io/how-algorithms-can-be-racist-2016-4

Open The Black Box Survey

5

ences remain between DNNs and humans? Despite the excellent performance of
DNNs it seems to be a lot. In [93] it is shown the alteration of an image (e.g.
of a tomato) such that the change is undetectable for humans can lead a DNN
to tag the image as something else (e.g., labeling a tomato as a dog). In [69]
a related result is shown. It is easy to produce images that DNNs believe to
be recognizable with 99.99% confidence, but which are completely unrecognizable to humans (e.g., labeling white static noise as a tomato). Similarly in [46]
visually-indistinguishable training-set are created using DNNs and linear models. With respect to text, in [58] effective methods to attack DNN text classifiers
are presented. Experiments show that the perturbations introduced in the text
are difficult to be perceived by a human but are still able to fool a state-of-the-art
DNN to misclassify a text as any desirable class. These results show interesting
differences between humans and DNNs, and raise reasonable doubts about trusting such black boxes. In [112] it is shown how conventional regularization and
small generalization error fail to explain why DNNs generalize well in practice.
Specifically, they prove that established state-of-the-art CNN trained for image
classification easily fits a random labeling of the training data. This phenomenon
occurs even if the true images are replaced by unstructured random noise.

3

Interpretable, Explainable and Comprehensible Models

Before presenting the classification of the problems addressed in the literature
with respect to black box predictors, and the corresponding solutions and models
categorization, it is crucial to understand what interpretability is. Thus, in this
section, we discuss what an interpretable model is, and we analyze the various
dimensions of interpretability as well as the desiderata for an interpretable model.
Moreover, we also discuss the meaning of words like interpretability, explainability
and comprehensibility which are largely used in the literature.
To interpret means to give or provide the meaning or to explain and present
in understandable terms some concept5 . Therefore, in data mining and machine
learning, interpretability is defined as the ability to explain or to provide the
meaning in understandable terms to a human [24]. These definitions assume
implicitly that the concepts expressed in the understandable terms composing an
explanation are self-contained and do not need further explanations. Essentially,
an explanation is an “interface” between humans and a decision maker that is at
the same time both an accurate proxy of the decision maker and comprehensible
to humans.
As shown in the previous section another significant aspect to mention about
interpretability is the reason why a system, a service or a method should be
interpretable. On the other hand, an explanation could be not required if there
are no decisions that have to be made on the outcome of the prediction. For
example, if we want to know if an image contains a cat or not and this information
is not required to take any sort of crucial decision, or there are no consequences
5

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

6

R. Guidotti et al.

for unacceptable results, then we do not need an interpretable model, and we
can accept any black box.
3.1

Dimensions of Interpretability

In the analysis of the interpretability of predictive models, we can identify a set
of dimensions to be taken into consideration, and that characterize the interpretability of the model [24].
Global and Local Interpretability: A model may be completely interpretable,
i.e., we are able to understand the whole logic of a model and follow the entire reasoning leading to all the different possible outcomes. In this case, we
are speaking about global interpretability. Instead, we indicate with local interpretability the situation in which it is possible to understand only the reasons
for a specific decision: only the single prediction/decision is interpretable.
Time Limitation: An important aspect is the time that the user is available or
is allowed to spend on understanding an explanation. The user time availability
is strictly related to the scenario where the predictive model has to be used.
Therefore, in some contexts where the user needs to quickly take the decision
(e.g., a disaster is imminent), it is preferable to have an explanation simple to
understand. While in contexts where the decision time is not a constraint (e.g.,
during a procedure to release a loan) one might prefer a more complex and
exhaustive explanation.
Nature of User Expertise: Users of a predictive model may have different
background knowledge and experience in the task: decision-makers, scientists,
compliance and safety engineers, data scientists, etc. Knowing the user experience in the task is a key aspect of the perception of interpretability of a model.
Domain experts may prefer a larger and more sophisticated model over a smaller
and sometimes more opaque one.
The works reviewed in the literature only implicitly specify if their proposal
is global or local. Just a few of them take into account the nature of user expertise [29,84,87], and no one provides real experiments about the time required to
understand an explanation. Instead, some of the works consider the “complexity” of an explanation through an approximation. For example, they define the
model complexity as the model’s size (e.g. tree depth, number of rules, number
of conjunctive terms) [22,32,40,84]. In the following, we further discuss issues
related to the complexity of an explanation.
3.2

Desiderata of an Interpretable Model

An interpretable model is required to provide an explanation. Thus, to realize
an interpretable model it is necessary to take into account the following list of
desiderata which are mentioned by a set of papers in the state of art [5,24,27,38]:
– Interpretability: to which extent the model and or the prediction are human understandable. The most addressed discussion is related to how the

Open The Black Box Survey

7

interpretability can be measured. In [27] a component for measuring the interpretability is the complexity of the predictive model in terms of the model
size. According to the literature, we refer to interpretability also with the
name comprehensibility.
– Accuracy: to which extent the model accurately predict unseen instances.
The accuracy of a model can be measured using various evaluation measures
like the accuracy score, the F1-score [95], etc. Producing an interpretable
model maintaining competitive levels of accuracy is the most common target
among the papers in the literature.
– Fidelity: to which extent the model is able to accurately imitate a black-box
predictor. The fidelity captures how much is good an interpretable model
in the mimic of the behavior of a black-box. Similarly to the accuracy, the
fidelity is measured in terms of accuracy score, F1-score, etc. but with respect
to the outcome of the black box which is considered as an oracle.

Moreover, besides these features strictly related to interpretability, yet according to [5,24,27,38] a data mining and machine learning model should have
other important desiderata. Some of these desiderata are related to ethical aspects such as fairness and privacy. The first principle requires that the model
guarantees the protection of groups against (implicit or explicit) discrimination
[85]; while the second one requires that the model does not reveal sensitive information about people [4]. The level of interpretability of a model together with
the standards of privacy and non-discrimination which are guaranteed may impact on how much human users trust that model. The degree of trust on a model
increases if the model is built by respecting constraints of monotonicity given by
the users [66,75,99]. A predictor respecting the monotonicity principle is, for example, a predictor where the increase of the values of a numerical attribute tends
to either increase or decrease in a monotonic way the probability of a record of
being member of a class [27]. Another property that influences the trust level
of a model is usability: people tend to trust more models providing information
that assist them to accomplish a task with awareness. In this line, an interactive
and queryable explanation results to be more usable than a textual and fixed
explanation.
Data mining and machine learning models should have other important
desiderata such as reliability, robustness, causality, scalability and generality.
This means that a model should have the ability to maintain certain levels of
performance independently from the parameters or from the input data (reliability/robustness) and that controlled changes in the input due to a perturbation
affect the model behavior (causality). Moreover, since we are in the Big Data
era, it is opportune to have models able to scale to large input data with large
input spaces. Finally, since often in different application scenarios one might use
the same model with different data, it is preferable to have portable models that
do not require special training regimes or restrictions (generality).

8

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 1. Example of decision tree.

3.3

Recognized Interpretable Models

In the state of the art a small set of existing interpretable models is recognized:
decision tree, rules, linear models [27,36,84]. These models are considered easily
understandable and interpretable for humans.
A decision system based on a decision tree exploits a graph structured like a
tree and composed of internal nodes representing tests on features or attributes
(e.g., whether a variable has a value lower than, equals to or grater than a
threshold, see Figure 1), and leaf nodes representing a class label. Each branch
represents a possible outcome [79]. The paths from the root to the leaves represent the classification rules. Indeed, a decision tree can be linearized into a set
of decision rules with the if-then form [77,78,26]:
if condition1 ∧ condition2 ∧ condition3 then outcome.
Here, the outcome corresponds to the class label of a leaf node while the conjunctions of conditions in the if clause correspond to the different conditions in
the path from the root to that leaf node.
More generally, a decision rule is a function which maps an observation to
an appropriate action. Decision rules can be extracted by generating the socalled classification rules, i.e., association rules that in the consequence have
the class label [3]. The most common rules are if-then rules where the if clause
is a combination of conditions on the input variables. In particular, it may be
formed by conjunctions, negations and disjunctions. However, methods for rule
extraction typically take into consideration only rules with conjunctions. Other
types of rules are: m-of-n rules where given a set of n conditions if m of them are
verified then the consequence of the rule is considered true [68]; list of rules where
given an ordered set of rules is considered true the consequent of the first rule
which is verified [109]; falling rule lists consists of a list of if-then rules ordered
with respect to the probability of a specific outcome and the order identifies the
example to be classified by that rule [102]; decision sets where an unordered set
of classification rules is provided such that the rules are not connected by else
statements, but each rule is an independent classifier that can assign its label
without regard for any other rules [53].
The interpretation of rules and decision trees is different with respect to
different aspects [27]. Decision trees are widely adopted for their graphical representation, while rules have a textual representation. The main difference is

Open The Black Box Survey

9

Fig. 2. Example of feature importance for a linear model.

that textual representation does not provide immediately information about the
more relevant attributes of a rule. On the other hand, the hierarchical position
of the features in a tree gives this kind of clue.
Attributes’ relative importance could be added to rules by means of positional information. Specifically, rule conditions are shown by following the order
in which the rule extraction algorithm added them to the rule. Even though
the representation of rules causes some difficulties in understanding the whole
model, it enables the study of single rules representing partial parts of the whole
knowledge (“local patterns”) which are composable. Also in a decision tree, the
analysis of each path separately from the leaf node to the root, enables users to
focus on such local patterns. However, if the tree is very deep in this case it is a
much more complex task. A further crucial difference between rules and decision
trees is that in a decision tree each record is classified by only one leaf node,
i.e., the class predicted are represented in a mutually exclusive and exhaustive
way by the set of leaves and their paths to the root node. On the other hand,
a certain record can satisfy the antecedent of rules having as consequent a different class for that record. Indeed, rule based classifiers have the disadvantage
of requiring an additional approach for resolving such situations of conflicting
outcome [107]. Many rule based classifiers deal with this issue by returning an
ordered rule list, instead of an unordered rule set. In this way it is returned the
outcome corresponding to the first rule matching the test record and ignoring
the other rules in the list. We notice that ordered rule lists may be harder to
interpret than classical rules. In fact, in this model a given rule cannot be considered independently from the precedent rules in the list [107]. Another widely
used approach consists in considering the top-k rules satisfying the test record
where the ordering is given by a certain weight (e.g. accuracy, Laplace accuracy,
etc.). Then, the outcome of the rules with the average highest weight among the
top-k is returned as predicted class [109].
Finally, explanations can also be provided through linear models [47,84]. This
can be done by considering and visualizing both the sign and the magnitude of
the contribution of the attributes for a given prediction (see Figure 2). If the
contribution of an attribute-value is positive, then it contributes by increasing
the model’s output. Instead, if the sign is negative then the attribute-value decreases the output of the model. If an attribute-value has an higher contribution
than another, then it means that it has an higher influence on the prediction
of the model. The produced contributions summarize the performance of the
model, thus the difference between the predictions of the model and expected

10

R. Guidotti et al.

predictions, providing the opportunity of quantifying the changes of the model
prediction for each test record. In particular, it is possible to identify the attributes leading to this change and for each attribute how much it contributed
to the change.
As last remark we point out that in general, when an explanation for a prediction is provided, it is often useful to analyze besides the explanation (satisfied
rules, branch of the tree, set of weights, etc.), also instances which are exceptions
with respect to the “boundaries” provided by the explanation, or with very few
differences with respect to the prototypes returned as explanation. For example,
instances covered by the rule body but with an outcome label different from the
class of the outcome predicted. Even though this sort of exception analysis is
hardly performed, it can be more informative than the direct explanation, and
it can also provide clues about the application domain [73].
3.4

Explanations and Interpretable Models Complexity

In the literature, very little space is dedicated to a crucial aspect: the model
complexity. The evaluation of the model complexity is generally tied to the model
comprehensibility, and this is a very hard task to address. As a consequence,
this evaluation is generally estimated with a rough approximation related to the
size of the model. Moreover, complexity is often used as an opposed term to
interpretability.
In [32] the complexity is identified by the number of regions, i.e., the parts
of the model, for which the boundaries are defined. In [84] as complexity for
linear models is adopted the number of non-zero weights, while for decision
trees the depth of the tree. In [22] the complexity of a rule (and thus of an
explanation) is measured by the length of the rule condition, defined as the
number of attribute-value pairs in the condition. Given two rules with similar
frequency and accuracy, the rule with a smaller length may be preferred as it is
more interpretable. Similarly, in case of lists of rules the complexity is typically
measured considering the total number of attribute-value pairs in the whole set of
rules. However, this could be a suitable way for measuring the model complexity,
since in an ordered rule list different test records need distinct numbers of rules
to be evaluated [27]. In this kind of model, a more honest measure could be
the average number of conditions evaluated to classify a set of test records [72].
However, this is more a “measure of the explanation” of a list of rules.
Differently from the not flexible representation of decision tree where the
prediction of a single record is mutually exhaustive and exclusive, rules characterization contains only significant clauses. As a consequence, an optimal set
of rules does not contain any duplicated information, given the fact that an
outcome label can appear only one time in the consequent of a set of rules,
while in a decision tree it typically comes out more than once. Moreover, rules
do not capture insignificant clauses, while decision trees can also have insignificant branches. This happens because rule based classifier generally select one
attribute-value while expanding a rule, whereas decision tree algorithms usually
select one attribute while expanding the tree [27]. Considering these aspects to

Open The Black Box Survey

11

estimate the complexity is very difficult. Consequently, even though a model
equivalence exists, the estimation of the fact that a different representation for
the same model (or explanation) is more complex than another when using decision trees or rules can be very subjective with respect to the interpreter.
3.5

Interpretable Data for Interpretable Models

The types of data used for classification may have diverse nature. Different types
of data present a different level of interpretability for a human. The most understandable data format for humans is the table [36]. Since matrices and vectors
are the typical data representation used by the vast majority of data mining and
machine learning techniques, tables are also easily managed by these algorithms
without requiring specific transformations.
Other forms of data which are very common in human daily life are images
and texts. They are perhaps for human brain even more easily understandable
than tables. On the other hand, the processing of these data for predictive models
requires their transformation into vectors that make them easier to process by
algorithms but less interpretable for humans. Indeed, on images and texts, the
state of art techniques typically apply predictive models based on super vector
machine, neural networks or deep neural networks that are usually hard to be
interpreted. As a consequence, certain recognized interpretable models cannot be
directly employed for this type of data in order to obtain an interpretable model
or a human understandable explanation. Transformations using equivalences,
approximations or heuristics are required in such a way that images and texts
can be employed by prediction systems and used for providing the interpretation
of the model and/or the prediction at the same time.
Finally, there exist other forms of data such as sequence data, spatio-temporal
data and complex network data that may be used by data mining and machine
learning algorithms. However in the literature, to the best of our knowledge,
there is no work addressing the interpretability of models for data different from
images, texts, and tabular data.

4

Open The Black Box Problems

An accurate analysis and review of the literature lead to the identification of
different categories of problems.
At a very high level, we can distinguish between reverse engineering and
design of explanations. In the first case, given the decision records produced by
a black box decision maker the problem consists in reconstructing an explanation
for it. The original dataset upon which the black box is trained is generally not
known in real life. Details about reverse engineering approaches are discussed at
the end of this section. On the other hand, it is used and exploited to build the
explanations by most of the works presented in this survey. In the second case,
given a dataset of training decision records the task consists in developing an
interpretable predictor model together with its explanations.

12

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 3. Classification Problem.

Through a deep analysis of the state of the art we are able to further refine
the first category obtaining three different problems. We name them black box
model explanation problem, black box outcome explanation problem, and black
box inspection problem. We name the second category transparent box design
problem. All these problems can be formalized as specific cases of the general
classification problems with the common target of providing an interpretable
and accurate predictive model. Details of the formalization are provided in the
following sections. Other important variants are generally not treated in the literature making the problem of discovering an explanation increasingly difficult:
(i) Is it allowed to query the black box at will to obtain new decision examples,
or only a fixed dataset of decision records is available? (ii) Is the complete set of
features used by the decision model known, or instead only part of these features
is known? In this survey we do not address these issues as in the literature there
is not sufficient material.
4.1

Problem Formulation

In the following, we generalize the classification problem (see Figure 3).
A predictor, also named model or classifier, is a function b : X m → Y where
m
X is the feature space with m corresponding to the number of features, and
Y is the target space. The feature space X can correspond to any basic data
type like the set of integers X = Im , reals X = Rm , booleans X = {0, 1}m , and
strings X = S m , where S = Σ ∗ and Σ = {a, b, c, . . . , } is the alphabet (a finite
non-empty set of symbols). The feature space X can also be a complex data type
composed of different basic data type. For example, X = I × R2 × S contains an
integer feature, two real features and a string feature. On the other hand, the
target space Y (with dimensionality equals to one) contains the different labels
(classes or outcomes) and identifies a semantic concept where Y can be a set of
booleans, integers or strings.
A predictor b is the output of a learner function Lb such that Lb : (X n×m ×
n
Y ) → (X m → Y). The learner Lb takes as input a dataset D = {X, Y } with
n samples where X ∈ X n×m and Y ∈ Y n and returns the predictor b. Given a
data record in the feature space x ∈ X m , the predictor b can be employed to
predict the target value ŷ, i.e., b(x) = ŷ.
Typically, in supervised learning [95], a training dataset Dtrain is used for
training the learner Lb (Dtrain ) which builds the predictor b, and a test dataset
Dtest is used for evaluating the performance of b. Given Dtest = {X, Y }, the

Open The Black Box Survey

13

evaluation is performed by observing for each couple of data record and target
value (x, y) ∈ Dtest the number of correspondences between y and b(x) = ŷ.
In the following we indicate with b a black box predictor belonging to the
set of uninterpretable data mining and machine learning models. According to
Section 3, b is a black box because the reasoning behind the function is not
understandable by humans and the outcome returned does not provide any clue
for its choice. In real-world applications, b is an opaque classifier resulting from
a learning Lb . Similarly, we indicate with c a comprehensible predictor for which
is available a global or a local explanation.
The performance of the comprehensible predictor c is generally evaluated by
two measures. The accuracy is used to evaluate how good are the performance of
both the black box predictor b and the comprehensible predictor c. The fidelity
is employed to evaluate how good is the comprehensible predictor c in mimicking
the black box predictor b. Indeed, given a data set D = {X, Y } we can apply to
each record x ∈ X
S both the predictors: (i) for the black box b we get the set of
predictions Ŷ = x∈X b(x),Swhile (ii) for the comprehensible predictor c we get
the set of predictions Ȳ = x∈X c(x).
Thus, we can evaluate the accuracy of the black box b and of the comprehensible predictor c by comparing the real target values Y against the predicted
target values Ŷ , and Ȳ with accuracy(Ŷ , Y ) and accuracy(Ȳ , Y ), respectively.
Moreover, we can evaluate the behavior of the predictor c with respect to b evaluating the fidelity of c by means of the function fidelity(Ŷ , Ȳ ). Note that the
fidelity score can be calculated by applying the same calculus of the accuracy
function where as target value is used the prediction Ȳ of the black box b instead
of the real values Y .
Black Box Model Explanation
Given a black box model solving a classification problem, the black box explanation problem consists in providing an interpretable and transparent model which
is able to mimic the behavior of the black box and which is also understandable
by humans (see Figure 4). In other words, the interpretable model approximating the black box must be globally interpretable. As consequence, we define the
black box model explanation problem as follows:
Definition 1 (Black Box Model Explanation). Given a black box predictor
b and a dataset D = {X, Y }, the black box model explanation problem consists
in finding a function f : (X m → Y) × (X n×m × Y n ) → (X m → Y) which takes
as input a black box b and a dataset D, and returns a comprehensible global
predictor cg , i.e., f (b, D) = cg , such that cg is able to mimic the behavior of b,
and exists a global explanator function εg : (X m → Y) → E that can derive from
cg a set of explanations E ∈ E modeling in a human understandable way the
logic behind cg , i.e., εg (cg ) = E.
A large set of the papers reviewed in this survey describe various designs for
the function f to solve the black box explanation problem. The set of explanations E can be modeled for example by a decision tree or by a set of rules [36],

14

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 4. Black Box Model Explanation Problem.

Fig. 5. Black Box Outcome Explanation Problem.

while the comprehensible global predictor cg is the predictor returning as global
explanation εg the decision tree or the set of rules.
Black Box Outcome Explanation
Given a black box model solving a classification problem, the black box outcome
explanation problem consists in providing an interpretable outcome, that is a
method for providing an explanation for the outcome of the black box. In other
words, the interpretable model must return the prediction together with an explanation about the reasons for that prediction, i.e., the prediction is only locally
interpretable. It is not required to explain the whole logic behind the black box
but only the reasons for the choice of a particular instance. Consequently, we
define the black box outcome explanation problem as:
Definition 2 (Black Box Outcome Explanation). Given a black box predictor b and a dataset D = {X, Y }, the black box outcome explanation problem
consists in finding a function f : (X m → Y) × (X n×m × Y n ) → (X m → Y) which
takes as input a black box b and a dataset D, and returns a comprehensible local
predictor cl , i.e., f (b, D) = cl , such that cl is able to mimic the behavior of b, and
exists a local explanator function εl : ((X m → Y) × (X m → Y) × X m ) → E which
takes as input the black box b, the comprehensible local predictor cl , and a data
record x with features in X m , and returns a human understandable explanation
e ∈ E for the data record x, i.e., εl (b, cl , x) = e.
We report in this survey recent works describing very diversified approaches
to implement function f , overcoming the limitations of explaining the whole
model (illustrated in Section 6). As an example, in this view of the problem, we
can consider that the explanation el may be either a path of a decision tree or
an association rule [27].

Open The Black Box Survey

15

Fig. 6. Black Box Inspection Problem.

Black Box Inspection Problem
Given a black box model solving a classification problem, the black box inspection
problem consists in providing a representation (visual or textual) for understanding either how the black box model works or why the black box returns certain
predictions more likely than others.
Definition 3 (Black Box Inspection Problem). Given a black box predictor
b and a dataset D = {X, Y }, the black box inspection problem consists in finding
a function f : (X → Y) × (X n × Y n ) → V which takes as input a black box b
and a dataset D, and returns a visual representation of the behavior of the black
box, f (b, D) = v with V being the set of all possible representations.
For example, the function f may be a technique based on sensitivity analysis
that, by observing the changing occurring in the predictions when varying the
input of b, returns a set of visualizations (e.g, partial dependence plots [48], or
variable effect characteristic curve [17]) highlighting the feature importance for
the predictions.
Transparent Box Design Problem
Given a classification problem the transparent box design problem consists in
providing a model which is locally or globally interpretable on its own.
Definition 4 (Transparent Box Design Problem). Given a dataset D =
{X, Y }, the transparent box design problem consists in finding a learning function Lc : (X n×m ×Y) → (X m → Y) which takes as input the dataset D = {X, Y }
and returns a (locally or globally) comprehensible predictor c, i.e., Lc (D) = c.
This implies that there exists a local explanator function εl or a global explanator
function εg (defined as before) that takes as input the comprehensible predictor c
and returns a human understandable explanation e ∈ E or a set of explanations
E.
For example, the functions Lc and c may be the decision tree learner and
predictor respectively, while the global explanator εg may return as explanation
a system for following the choices taken along the various branches of the tree,
and εl may return a textual representation of the path followed according to the
decision suggested by the predictor.

16

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 7. Transparent Box Design Problem.

Thus, according to our problem definitions, in this survey, when we say that
a method is able to open the black box, we are referring to one of the following
statements: (i) it explains the model, (ii) it explains the outcome, (iii) it can
inspect the black box internally, (iv) it provides a transparent solution.

5

Problem And Explanator Based Classification

In this survey, we propose a classification based on the type of problem faced
and on the explanator adopted to open the black box. In particular, in our
classification we take into account the following features:
–
–
–
–

the
the
the
the

type
type
type
type

of
of
of
of

problem faced (according to the definitions in Section 4);
explanator adopted to open the black box;
black box model that the explanator is able to open;
data used as input by the black box model.

In each section we group together all the papers that share the same problem
definition, while the subsections correspond to the different solutions adopted to
develop the explanators. In turn, in each subsection, we group the papers that
try to explain the same type of black box. Finally, we keep the type of data used
by the black box as a feature which is specified for each work analyzed.
We organize the sections discussing the different problems as follows. In Section 6 we analyze the papers presenting approaches to solve the black box model
explanation problem. These approaches provide a globally interpretable predictor which is able to mimic the black box. On the other hand, in Section 7 are
reviewed the methods solving the black box outcome explanation problem: the
predictor returned is locally interpretable and provides an explanation only for
a given record. In Section 8 we discuss the papers proposing methodologies for
inspecting black boxes, i.e., not providing a comprehensible predictor but a visualization tool for studying how the black box work internally, and what can
happen when a certain input is provided. Finally, in Section 9 we report the
papers designing a transparent predictor to overcome the “obscure” limitation
of black boxes. These approaches try to provide a global or local interpretable
model without sacrificing the accuracy of a black box learned to solve the same
task.

Open The Black Box Survey

17

For each of the sections above, we propose a further categorization with
respect to the type of explanator adopted. This categorization reflects on the
papers grouped into the various subsections:
– Decision Tree (DT) or Single Tree. It is commonly recognized that decision
tree is one of the more interpretable and easily understandable models, primarily for global, but also for local, explanations. Indeed, a very widespread
technique for opening the black box is the so-called “single tree approximation”.
– Decion Rules (DR) or Rule Based Explanator. Decision rules are among the
more human understandable techniques. There exist various types of rules
(illustrated in Section 3.3). They are used to explain the model, the outcome
and also for the transparent design. We remark the existence of techniques
for transforming a tree into a set of rules.
– Features Importance (FI). A very simple but effective solution acting as
either global or local explanation consists in returning as explanation the set
of features used by the black box together with their weight.
– Salient Mask (SM). An efficient way of pointing out what causes a certain outcome, especially when images or texts are treated, consists in using
“masks” visually highlighting the determining aspects of the record analyzed.
They are generally used to explain deep neural networks.
– Sensitivity Analysis (SA). It consists of evaluating the uncertainty in the
outcome of a black box with respect to different sources of uncertainty in its
inputs. It is generally used to develop visual tools for black box inspection.
– Partial Dependence Plot (PDP). These plots help in visualizing and understanding the relationship between the outcome of a black box and the input
in a reduced feature space.
– Prototype Selection (PS). This explanator consists in returning, together
with the outcome, an example very similar to the classified record, in order
to make clear which criteria the prediction was returned. A prototype is
an object that is representative of a set of similar instances and is part of
the observed points, or it is an artifact summarizing a subset of them with
similar characteristics.
– Neurons Activation (NA). The inspection of neural networks and deep neural
network can be carried out also by observing which are the fundamental
neurons activated with respect to particular input records.
In the following, we list all the black boxes opened in the reviewed papers.
These black boxes are all supervised learning algorithm designed to solve a classification problem [95].
– Neural Network (NN). Inspired by biological neural networks, artificial neural networks learn to do tasks by considering examples. A NN is formed by a
set of connected neurons. Each link between neurons can transmit a signal.
The receiving neuron can process the signal and then transmit to downstream neurons connected to it. Typically, neurons are organized in layers.
Different layers perform different transformations on their inputs. Signals

18

R. Guidotti et al.

travel from the input layer, to the output layer, passing through the hidden
layer(s) in the middle multiple times. Neurons and connections may also have
a weight that varies as learning proceeds, which can increase or decrease the
strength of the signal that it sends.
– Tree Ensemble (TE). Ensemble methods combine more than one learning
algorithm to improve the predictive power of any of the single learning algorithms that they combines. Random forests, boosted trees and tree bagging
are examples of TEs. They combine the predictions of different decision trees
each one trained on an independent subset of the input data.
– Support Vector Machine (SVM). Support Vector Machines utilize a subset of
the training data, called support vectors, to represent the decision boundary.
A SVN is a classifier that searches for hyperplanes with the largest margin
for the decision boundary.
– Deep Neural Network (DNN). A DNN is a NN that can model complex nonlinear relationship with multiple hidden layers. A DNN architecture is formed
by a composition of models expressed as a layered combination of basic units.
In DNNs the data typically flows from the input to the output layer without
looping back. The most used DNN are Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs).
A peculiar component of RNNs are Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) nodes
which are particularly effective for language modeling. On the other hand, in
image processing Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are typically used.
Moreover, recently agnostic approaches for explaining black boxes are being
developed. An Agnostic Explanator (AGN) is a comprehensible predictor which
is not tied to a particular type of black box, explanation or data type. In other
words, in theory, an agnostic predictor can explain indifferently a neural network
or a tree ensemble using a single tree or a set of rules. Since only a few approaches
in the literature describe themselves to be fully agnostic, and since the principal
task is to explain a black box predictor, in this paper, if not differently specified,
we term agnostic the approaches defined to explain any type of black box.
The types of data used as input of black boxes analyzed in this survey are
the following:
– Tabular (TAB). With tabular data, we indicate any classical dataset in which
every record shares the same set of features and each feature is either numerical, categorical or boolean.
– Image (IMG). Many black boxes work with labeled images. These images
can be treated as they are by the black box or can be preprocessed (e.g,
re-sized in order to have all the same dimensions).
– Text (TXT). As language modeling is one of the tasks most widely assessed
nowadays together with image recognition, labeled datasets of text are generally used for tasks like spam detection or topic classification.
In data mining and machine learning many other types of data are also used
like sequences, networks, mobility trajectories, etc. However, they are not used
as input in the methods of the papers proposing a solution for opening the black
box.

Open The Black Box Survey

19

Fig. 8. Reverse Engineering approach: the learned black box predictor is queried with
a test dataset to produce an oracle which associate to each record a label which is not
real but assigned by the black box.

Table 1 lists the methods for opening and explaining black boxes and summarizes the various fundamental features and characteristics listed so far, together
with additional information that we believe could be useful for the reader. The
columns Examples, Code and Dataset indicates if any kind of example of explanation is shown in the paper, and if the source code and the dataset used in the
experiments are publicly available, respectively. The columns General and Random are discussed in the following section. We point out that Table 1 reports the
main references only, while existing extensions or derived works are discussed in
the survey. Table 2 reports the legend of Table 1, i.e., the expanded acronym and
the meaning of the features in Table 1. Moreover, in order to provide the reader
with a useful tool to find a particular set of papers with determined characteristics, Appendix A provides Tables 3, 4 and 5, in which are reported the list of
the papers with respect to each problem, explanator and black box, respectively.
Reverse Engineering: A Common Approach For Understanding The
Black Box
Before proceeding in the detailed analysis and classification of papers proposing
method f for understanding black boxes b, we present in this section the most
largely used approach to solve the black box model and outcome explanation
problems and the black box inspection problem. We refer to this approach as
reverse engineering because the black box predictor b is queried with a certain
test dataset in order to create an oracle dataset that in turn will be used to
train the comprehensible predictor (see Figure 8). The name reverse engineering
comes from the fact that we can only observe the input and output of the black
box.
With respect to the black box model and outcome explanation problems, the
possibility of action tied with this approach relies on the choice of adopting a
particular type of comprehensible predictor, and in the possibility of querying
the black box with input records created in a controlled way and/or by using
random perturbations of the initial train or test dataset. Regarding the random
perturbations of the input used to feed the black box, it is important to recall
that recent studies discovered that DNN built for classification problems on texts
and images can be easily fooled (see Section 2). Not human perceptible changes in
an image can lead a DNN to label the record as something else. Thus, according

20

R. Guidotti et al.

Trepan
DecText
GPDT
Tree Metrics
CCM
STA
CDT
TSP
Conj Rules
G-REX
REFNE
RxREN
SVM+P
inTrees
GoldenEye
PALM
CAM
Grad-CAM
LIME
MES
NID
GDP
IG
VEC
VIN
ICE
Prospector
Auditing
OPIA
TreeView
IP
CPAR
FRL
BRL
TLBR
IDS
Rule Set
1Rule
PS
BCM
OT-SpAMs

[20]
Craven et al.
[50]
Krishnan et al.
[9]
Boz
[39] Johansson et al.
[14]
Chipman et al.
[23] Domingos et al.
[29]
Gibbons et al.
[114]
Zhou et al.
[87]
Schetinin et al.
[32]
Hara et al.
[94]
Tan et al.
[19]
Craven et al.
[37] Johansson et al.
[115]
Zhou et al.
[6]
Augasta et al.
[70]
Nunez et al.
[28]
Fung et al.
[22]
Deng
[61]
Lou et al.
[33]
Henelius et al.
[51]
Krishnan et al.
[97]
Tolomei et al.
[108]
Xu et al.
[25]
Fong et al.
[113]
Zhou et al.
[89]
Selvaraju et al.
[56]
Lei et al.
[83]
Ribeiro et al.
[98]
Turner et al.
[71]
Olden et al.
[7]
Baehrens
[92]
Sundararajan
[16]
Cortez et al.
[35]
Hooker
[30] Goldstein et al.
[48]
Krause et al.
[2]
Adler et al.
[1]
Adebayo et al.
[110]
Yosinski et al.
[96] Thiagarajan et al.
[90]
Shwartz et al.
[81]
Radford
[109]
Yin et al.
[102]
Wang et al.
[57]
Letham et al.
[91]
Su et al.
[53] Lakkaraju et al.
[104]
Wang et al.
[64] Malioutov et al.
[8]
Bien et al.
[44]
Kim et al.
[63] Mahendran et al.
[47] Kononenko et al.
[103]
Wang et al.

1996
1999
2002
2009
1998
1998
2013
2016
2007
2016
2016
1994
2003
2003
2012
2002
2005
2014
2013
2014
2017
2017
2015
2017
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2002
2010
2017
2011
2004
2015
2016
2016
2016
2015
2016
2017
2017
2003
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2011
2014
2015
2010
2015

Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Model Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Outcome Expl.
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design
Transp. Design

DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DT
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
FI
FI
DT
FI
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
FI
DR
SA
SA
SA
SA
PDP
PDP
PDP
PDP
PDP
NA
DT
NA
NA
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
PS
PS
PS
FI
DT

NN
NN
NN
NN
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
NN
NN
NN
NN
SVM
SVM
TE
AGN
AGN
AGN
TE
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
AGN
AGN
NN
AGN
DNN
AGN
AGN
AGN
AGN
AGN
AGN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
-

TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
ANY
TAB
IMG
IMG
IMG
IMG
TXT
ANY
ANY
TAB
TAB
ANY
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
IMG
TAB
TAB
TXT
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
TAB
ANY
ANY
IMG
TAB
TAB

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

at
as
e

t

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

D

de
Co

pl
es

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X

Ex
am

G
en
er
al
R
an
do
m

Ty
pe
D
at
a

Bo
x
Bl
ac
k

Ex
pl
an
at
or

lem
Pr
ob

r
Ye
a

ho
rs
A
ut

ef
.
R

N

am

e

Table 1. Summary of methods for opening and explaining black boxes.

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Open The Black Box Survey

21

Table 2. Legend of Table 1. In the following are described the features reported and
the abbreviations adopted.
Feature
Problem

Description
Model Explanation, Outcome Explanation, Black Box Inspection, Transparent
Design
Explanator DT - Decision Tree, DR - Decision Rules, FI - Features Importance, SM Saliency Masks, SA - Sensitivity Analysis, PDP - Partial Dependence Plot,
NA - Neurons Activation, PS - Prototype Selection
Black Box NN - Neural Network, TE - Tree Ensemble, SVM - Support Vector Machines,
DNN - Deep Neural Network, AGN - AGNostic black box
Data Type TAB - TABular, IMG - IMaGe, TXT - TeXT, ANY - ANY type of data
General Indicates if an explanatory approach can be generalized for every black box,
i.e., it does not consider peculiarities of the black box to produce the explanation
Random Indicates if any kind of random perturbation or permutation of the original
dataset is required for the explanation
Examples Indicates if example of explanations are shown in the paper
Code
Indicates if the source code is available
Dataset Indicates if the datasets used in the experiments are available

to these discoveries, the methods treating images or text, in theory, should not
be enabled to use completely random perturbations of their input. However, this
is not always the case in practice [84].
Such reverse engineering approach can be classified as generalizable or not
(or pedagocial vs. decompsitional as described in [65]). We say that an approach
is generalizable when a purely reverse engineering procedure is followed, i.e.,
the black box is only queried with different input records to obtain an oracle
used for learning the comprehensible predictor (see Figure 9-(left)). In other
words, internal peculiarities of the black box are not exploited to build the
comprehensible predictor. Thus, if an approach is generalizable, even though it
is presented to explain a particular type of black box, in reality, it can be used
to interpret any kind of black box predictor. That is, it is an agnostic approach
for interpreting black boxes. On the other hand, we say that an approach is not
generalizable if it can be used to open only that particular type of black box
for which it was designed for (see Figure 9-(right)). For example, if an approach
is designed to interpret random forest and internally use a concept of distance
between trees, then such approach can not be utilized to explain predictions of
a NN. A not generalizable approach can not be black box agnostic.
In Table 1 we keep track of these aspects with the two features General and
Random. With General we indicate if an explanatory approach can be generalized for every black box, while with Random we indicate if any kind of random
perturbation or permutation of the original dataset is used by the explanatory
approach.
In light of these concepts, as the reader will discover below, a further classification not explicitly indicated emerges from the analysis of these papers. This

22

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 9. (Left) Generalizable reverse engineering approach: internal peculiarities of the
black box are not exploited to build the comprehensible predictor. (Right) Not Generalizable reverse engineering approach: the comprehensible predictor is the result of a
procedure involving internal characteristics of the black box.

fact can be at the same time a strong point or a weakness of the current state
of the art. Indeed, we highlight that the works for opening the black box are
realized for two cases. The first (larger) group contains approaches proposed to
tackle a particular problem (e.g., medical cases) or to explain a particular type
of black box, that is, the solutions are specific for the problem instance. The
second group contains general purpose solutions that try to be general as much
as possible and propose agnostic and generalizable solutions.

6

Solving the Black Box Model Explanation Problem

In this section we review the methods for opening the black box facing the black
box model explanation problem (see Section 4.1). That is, the proposed methods provide globally interpretable models which are able to mimic the behavior
of black boxes and which are also understandable by humans. We recognized
different groups of approaches. In Section 6.1 we analyze the proposals using
a decision tree as explanator, while in Section 6.2 they use rules. Section 6.3
describes the methods which are designed to work with any type of black box.
Finally, Section 6.4 contains the remaining ones.
6.1

Explanation via Single Tree Approximation

In this section we present a set of works addressing the black box model explanation problem by implementing in different ways the function f . All the following
works adopt a decision tree as comprehensible global predictor cg , and consequently represent the explanation εg with the decision tree itself. Moreover, we
point out that all the methods presented in this section work on tabular data.
Explanation of Neural Networks. The following papers describe the implementation of functions f which are able to interpret a black box b consisting in
a Neural Network (NN) [95] with a comprehensible global predictor cg consisting in a decision tree. In these works, the NNs are considered black-boxes, i.e.,

Open The Black Box Survey

23

the only interface permitted is presenting an input x to the neural network b
and obtaining the outcome ŷ. The final goal is to comprehend how the neural
networks behave by submitting to it a large set of instances and analyzing their
different predictions.
Single tree approximations for NNs were first presented in 1996 by Craven et
al. [20]. The comprehensible representations of the neural network b is returned
by Trepan which is the implementation of function f . Trepan queries the neural
network b to induce a decision tree cg approximating the concepts represented
by the networks by maximizing the gain ratio [95] together with an estimation of
the current model fidelity. Another advantage of Trepan with respect to common
tree classifiers like ID3 or C4.5 [95] is that, thanks to the black box b, it can use
as many instances as desired for each split, so that also the node splits near to
the bottom of the tree are realized using a considerable amount of training data.
In [50], Krishnan et al. present a three step method f . The first step generates
a sort of “prototype” for each target class in Y by using genetic programming
to query the trained neural network b. The input features dataset X is exploited
for constraining the prototypes. The second step selects the best prototypes for
inducing the learning of the decision tree cg in the third step. This approach leads
to get more understandable and smaller decision trees starting from smaller data
sets.
In [9], Boz describes DecText, another procedure that uses a decision tree c
to explain neural network black boxes b. The overall procedure recalls Trepan
[20] with the innovation of four splitting methods aimed at finding the most
relevant features during the tree construction. Moreover, since one of the main
purposes of the tree is to maximize the fidelity while keeping the model simple,
a fidelity pruning strategy to reduce the tree size is defined. A set of random
instances are generated. Then, starting from the bottom of the tree, for each
internal node a leaf is created with the majority label using the labeling of the
random instances. If the fidelity of the new tree overtakes the old one, than the
maximum fidelity and the tree are updated.
In [39] Johansson et al. use Genetic Programming to evolve Decision Trees
(the comprehensible global predictor cg ), in order to mimic the behavior of a
neural network ensemble (the black box b). The dataset D used by genetic programming (implementing function f ) consists of a lot of different combinations
of the original data and oracle data labeled by b. The paper shows that trees
based only on original training data have the worst performance in terms of
accuracy in the test data, while the trees evolved using both the oracle guide
and the original data produce significantly more accurate trees cg .
We underline that, even though these approaches are developed to explain
neural networks, since peculiarities of the neural networks are not used by f ,
which uses b only as an oracle, these approaches can be potentially adopted as
agnostic explanators, i.e., they can be used to open any kind of black box and
represent it with a single tree.

24

R. Guidotti et al.

Explanation of Tree Ensembles. Richer collections of trees provide higher
performance and less uncertainty in the prediction. On the other hand, it is
generally difficult to make sense of the resultant forests. The papers presented in
this section describe functions f for approximating a black box model b consisting
in Tree Ensembles (TE) [95] (e.g. random forests) with a global comprehensible
predictor cg in the form of a decision tree, and explanation εg as a the decision
tree as before.
Unlike previous works, the tree ensembles are not only viewed as black boxes,
but also some of their internal features are used to derive the global comprehensible model cg . For example, Chipman et al., in [14] observe that although
hundreds of distinct trees are identified by random forests, in practice, many
of them generally differ only by few nodes. In addition, some trees may differ
only in the topology, but use the same partitioning of the feature space X . The
paper proposes several measures of dissimilarity for trees. Such measures are
used to summarize forest of trees through clustering, and finally use archetypes
of the associated clusters as model explanation. Here, f corresponds to the clustering procedure, and the global comprehensible predictor cg is the set of tree
archetypes minimizing the distance among all the trees in each cluster. In this
approach, f does not extend the input dataset D with random data.
On the other hand, random data enrichment and model combination are the
basis for the Combined Multiple Model (CCM) procedure f presented in [23].
Given the tree ensemble black box b, it first modifies n times the input dataset D
and learns a set of n black boxes bi ∀i = 1, . . . , n, and then it randomly generates
data record x which are labeled using a combination (e.g. bagging) of the n black
boxes bi , i.e., Cb1 ,...,bn (x) = ŷ. In this way, the training dataset D = D ∪ {x, ŷ}
is increased. Finally, it builds the global comprehensible model cg as a decision
tree (C4.5 [79]) on the enriched dataset D. Since it is not exploiting particular
features of the tree ensemble b, also this approach can be generalized with respect
to the black box b. In line with [23], the authors of [29] generate a very large
artificial dataset D using the prediction of the random forest b, then explain
b by training a decision tree cg on this artificial dataset in order to mime the
behavior of the random forest. Finally, they improve the comprehensibility of cg
by cutting the decision tree with respect to a human understandable depth (i.e.,
from 6 to 11 nodes of depth). [114] proposes Single Tree Approximation (STA),
an extension of [29] which empowers the construction of the final decision tree
cg by using test hypothesis to understand which are the best splits observing
the Gini indexes on the trees of the random forest b.
Schetinin et al. in [87] present an approach for the probabilistic interpretation
of the black box b Bayesian decision trees ensembles [10] through a quantitative
evaluation of uncertainty of a Confident Decision Tree (CDT) cg . The methodology f for interpreting b is summarized as follows: (i) the classification confidence
for each tree in the ensemble is calculated using the training data D, (ii) the
decision tree cg that covers the maximal number of correct training examples
is selected, keeping minimal the amount of misclassifications on the remaining
examples by sub-sequentially refining the training dataset D. Similarly to [14],

Open The Black Box Survey

25

also this explanation method f does not extend the input dataset D with random data and cannot be generalized to other black boxes but can be used only
with Bayesian decision tree ensembles.
In [32], Hara et al. reinterpret Additive Tree Models (ATM) (the black box b)
using a probabilistic generative model interpretable by humans. An interpretable
ATM has a sufficiently small number of regions. Therefore, their aim is to reduce
the number of regions in an ATM while minimizing the model error. To satisfy
these requirements, they propose a post processing method f that works as
follows. First, it learns an ATM b generating a number of regions. Then, it mimics
b using a simpler model (the comprehensible global predictor cg ) where the
number of regions is fixed as small, e.g., ten. In particular, to obtain the simpler
model an Expectation Maximization algorithm is adopted [95] minimizing the
Kullback-Leibler divergence from the ensemble b.
The authors of [94] propose Tree Space Prototype (TSP), an approach f for
interpretating tree ensembles (the black box b) by finding tree prototypes (the
comprehensible global predictor cg ) in the tree space. The main contributions for
f are: (i) the definition of the random forest proximity between trees, and (ii)
the design of the procedure to extract the tree prototypes used for classification.
6.2

Explanation via Rule Extraction

Another commonly used state of the art interpretable and easily understandable
model is the set of rules. When a set of rules describing the logic behind the
black box model is returned the interpretability is provided at a global level.
In the following, we present a set of reference works solving the black box model
explanation problem by implementing in different ways function f , and by adopting any kind of decision rules as comprehensible global predictor cg . Hence, the
global explanation εg change accordingly to the type of rules extracted by cg .
Similarly to the previous section, also all the methods presented in this section
work on tabular data.
Explanation of Neural Networks. The following papers describe the implementation of functions f which are able to interpret a black box b consisting in
a Neural Network (NN) [95]. In the literature already exists a survey specialized
on techniques extracting rules from neural networks [5]. It provides an overview
of mechanisms designed to (i) insert knowledge into neural networks (knowledge
initialization), (ii) extract rules from trained NNs (rule extraction), and (iii) use
NNs to refine existing rules (rule refinement). The approaches presented in [5]
are strongly dependent on the black box b and on the specific type of decision
rules cg . Thus, they are not generalizable and can not be employed to solve other
instances of the black box model explanation problem. The survey [5] classifies
the methods according to the following criteria:
– Expressive power of the extracted rules.
– Translucency: that is decompositional, pedagogical and eclectic properties.
– Portability of the rule extraction technique.

26

R. Guidotti et al.

– Quality of the rules extracted. Quality includes accuracy, fidelity, consistency,
i.e., different training of the NN extract the rules that lead to the same
classification of unseen examples.
– Algorithmic complexity.
A typical paper analyzed in [5] is [19] where Craven et al. present a method
f to explain the behavior of a neural network b by transforming rule extraction
(which is a search problem) into a learning problem. The original training data
D and a randomized extension of it are provided as input to the black box b.
If the input x ∈ D with outcome ŷ is not covered by the set of rules, then a
conjunctive (or m-of-n) rule is formed from {x, ŷ} considering all the possible
antecedents. The procedure ends when all the target classes have been processed.
In [40] Johansson et al. exploit G-REX [37], an algorithm for rule extraction, as function f to explain a neural network b. They use the classical reverse
engineering schema where random permutations of the original dataset D are
annotated by b, and such dataset is used as input by G-REX, which corresponds
with cg in this case. In particular, G-REX extracts rules by exploiting genetic
programming as a key concept. In subsequent works, the authors show that the
proposed methodology f can be also employed to interpret trees ensembles. [38]
extends G-REX for handling regression problems by generating regression trees,
and classification problems by generating fuzzy rules.
In [115] the authors present REFNE, an approach f to explain neural network ensembles b. REFNE uses ensembles for generating instances and then, extracts symbolic rules cg from those instances. REFNE avoids useless discretizations of continuous attributes, by applying a particular discretization leading
to discretize different continuous attributes using different intervals. Moreover,
REFNE can also be used as a rule learning approach, i.e., it solves the transparent box design problem (see Section 4.1). Also in [6] Augasta et al. propose
RxREN a rule extraction algorithm cg which returns the explanation of a trained
NN b. The method f works as follows. First, it prunes the insignificant input
neurons from trained NNs and identifies the data range necessary to classify
the given test instance with a specific class. Second, using a reverse engineering
technique, through RxREN generates the classification rules for each class label
exploiting the data ranges previously identified, and improve the initial set of
rules by a process that prunes and updates the rules.
Explanation of Support Vector Machines. The following papers show implementations of functions f for explaining a black box b consisting in a Support
Vector Machine (SVM) [95] still returning a comprehensible global predictor cg
consisting in a set of decision rules.
The authors of [70] propose the SVM+Prototypes (SVM+P) procedure f for
rule extraction cg from support vector machines b. It works as follows: it first
determines the decision function by means of a SVM, then a clustering algorithm
is used to find out a prototype vector for each class. By using geometric methods,
these points are joined with the support vectors for defining ellipsoids in the input
space that can be transformed into if-then rules.

Open The Black Box Survey

27

Fig. 10. From [65]: pedagogical (a) and decompositional (b) rule extraction techniques.

Fung et al., in [28], describe as function f an algorithm based on constraint
programming for converting linear SVM b (and other hyperplane-based linear
classifiers) into a set of non overlapping and interpretable rules cg . These rules
are asymptotically equivalent to the original linear SVM. Each iteration of the
algorithm for extracting the rules is designed to solve a constrained optimization
problem having a low computational cost. We underline that this black box
explanation solution f is not generalizable and can be employed only for Linear
SVM-like black boxes.
In [65] the authors propose a qualitative comparison of the explanations returned by techniques for extraction of rules from SVM black boxes (e.g. SVM+P
[70], Fung method [28]) against the redefining of methods designed for explaining neural networks, i.e., C4.5 [95], Trepan [20] and G-REX [37]. How we anticipated in the previous section, the authors delineate the existence of two type of
approaches to extract rules: pedagogical and decompositional. Pedagogical techniques f directly extract rules which relate the inputs and outputs of the predictor (e.g. [20,37]), while decompositional approaches are closely intertwined with
the internal structure of the SVM (e.g. [70,28]). We recall that, in Table 1 we
identify with the term generalizable the pedagogical approaches.

Explanation of Tree Ensembles. Finally, in [22], Deng proposes the inTrees
framework f to explain black boxes b defined as Tree Ensembles (TE) by returning a set of decision rules cg . In particular, InTrees extracts, measures, prunes and
selects rules from tree ensembles, and calculates frequent variable interactions.
The set of black boxes b that inTrees can explain is represented by any kind of
tree ensemble like random forests, regularized random forests and boosted trees.
InTrees framework can be used for both classification and regression problems.
The technique described by InTrees is also known as Simplified Tree Ensamble
Learner (STEL): it extracts the most supported and simplest rules form the
trees ensemble.

28

6.3

R. Guidotti et al.

Agnostic Explanator

Recent approaches for interpretation are agnostic (AGN) with respect to the
black box to be explained. In this section, we present a set of works solving the
black box model explanation problem by implementing function f such that any
type of black box b can be explained. These approaches do not return a specific
comprehensible global predictor cg , thus the type of explanation εg change with
respect to f and cg . By definition all these approaches are generalizable.
Probably the first attempt of an agnostic solution was proposed in [60]. Lou
et al. propose a method f which exploits Generalized Additive Models (GAMs)
and it is able to interpret regression splines (linear and logistics), single trees and
tree ensembles (bagged trees, boosted trees, boosted bagged trees and random
forests). GAMs are presented as the gold standard for intelligibility when only
univariate terms are considered. Indeed, the explanation εc is returned as the
importance of the contribution of the individual features in b together with their
shape function, such that the impact of each predictor can be quantified. A shape
function is the plot of a function capturing the linearities and nonlinearities
together with its shape. It works on tabular data. A refinement of the GAM
approach is proposed by the same authors in [61]. A case study on health care
showing the application of the GAM the refinement is presented in [13]. In
particular, this approach is used for the prediction of the pneumonia risk and
hospital 30-day readmission.
In [33] the authors present an iterative algorithm f that allows finding features and dependencies exploited by a classifier when producing a prediction. The
attributes and the dependencies among the grouped attributes depict the global
explanation εg . The proposed approach f named GoldenEye is based on tabular
data randomization (within class permutation, dataset permutation, etc.) and
on grouping attributes with interactions have an impact on the predictive power.
In [51], PALM is presented (Partition Aware Local Model ) to implement
f . In particular, PALM is a method that is able to learn and summarize the
structure of the training dataset to help the machine learning debugging. PALM
mimes a black box b using a meta-model for partitioning the training dataset,
and a set of sub-models for approximating and miming the patterns within each
partition. As meta-model it uses a decision tree (cg ) so that the user can examine
its structure and determine if the rules detected follow the intuition or not, and
link efficiently problematic test records to the responsible train data. The submodels linked to the leaves of the tree can be a arbitrarily complex model able
to catch elaborate local patterns, but yet interpretable by humans. Thus, with
respect to the final sub-models PALM is not only black box agnostic but also
explanator agnostic. Moreover, PALM is also data agnostic; i.e., it can work on
any kind of data.
6.4

Explanation via Other Approaches

In [97] a solution for the black box model explanation problem is presented. It
adopts an approach that can not be classified as one of the previous. The proposed approach f uses the internals of a random forest model b to produce

Open The Black Box Survey

29

recommendations on the transformation of true negative examples into positively predicted examples. These recommendations, which are strictly related to
the feature importance, corresponds to the comprehensible global predictor cg .
In particular, the function f aims at transforming a negative instance into a
positive instance by analyzing the path on the trees in the forest predicting such
instance as positive or negative. The explanation of b is provided by means of
the helpfulness of the features in the paths adopted for changing the instance
outcome from negative to positive.

7

Solving the Black Box Outcome Explanation Problem

In this section we review the methods solving the black box outcome explanation
problem (see Section 4.1). These methods provide a locally interpretable model
which is able to explain the prediction of the black box in understandable terms
for humans. This category of approaches using a local point of view with respect
to the prediction is becoming the most studied in the last years. Section 7.1
describes the methods providing the salient parts of the record for which a
prediction is required using Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), while Section 7.2
analyzes the methods which are able to provide a local explanation for any type
of black box.
7.1

Explanation of Deep Neural Network via Saliency Masks

In the following works the opened black box b is a DNN and the explanation
is provided by using a Saliency Mask (SM), i.e. a subset of the original record
which is mainly responsible for the prediction. For example, as salient mask we
can consider the part of an image or a sentence in a text. A saliency image
summarizes where a DNN looks into an image for recognizing their predictions.
The function f to extract the local explanation εl is always not generalizable
and often strictly tied with the particular type of network, i.e., convolutional,
recursive, etc.
The work [108] introduces an attention based model f which automatically
identifies the contents of an image. The black box is a neural network which
consists of a combination of a Convolutional NN (CNN) for the features extraction and a Recursive NN (RNN) containing Long Short Term Memory (LSTM),
nodes producing the image caption by generating a single word for each iteration. The explanation εl of the prediction is provided through a visualization of
the attention (area of an image, see Figure 11-left) for each word in the caption. A similar result is obtained by Fong et al. in [25]. In this work the authors
propose a framework f of explanations cl as meta-predictors. In their view, an
explanation εl , and thus a meta-predictor, is a rule that predicts the response
of a black box b to certain inputs. Moreover, they propose to use saliency maps
as explanations for black boxes to highlight the salient part of the images (see
Figure 11-right).

30

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 11. Saliency Masks for explanation of deep neural network. (Left) From [108] the
elements of the image highlighted. (Right) From [25] the mask and the level of accuracy
on the image considering and not considering the learned mask.

Similarly, another set of works produce saliency masks incorporating network
activations into their visualizations. This kind of approaches f are named Class
Activation Mapping (CAM). In [113], global average pooling in CNN (the black
box b) is used for generating the CAM. A CAM (the local explanation εl ) for a
particular outcome label indicates the discriminative active region that identifies
that label. [89] defines its relaxed generalization Grad-CAM which visualizes
the linear combination of a late layer’s activations and label-specific weights
(or gradients for [113]). All these approaches arbitrarily invoke different back
propagation and/or activation, which results in aesthetically pleasing, heuristic
explanations of image saliency. Their solution is not black box agnostic limited
to NN, but it requires specific architectural modifications [113] or access to
intermediate layers [89].
With respect to texts, in [56] the authors develop an approach f which incorporates rationales as part of the learning process of b. A rationale is a simple
subset of words representing a short and coherent piece of text (e.g., phrases),
and alone must be sufficient for the prediction of the original text. A rational
is the local explanator εl and provides the saliency of the text analyzed, i.e.,
indicates the reason for a certain outcome.
7.2

Agnostic Explanator

In this section we present the agnostic solutions proposed for the black box
outcome explanation problem implementing function f such that any type of
black box b can be explained. All these approaches are generalizable by definition
and return a comprehensible local predictor cl . Thus, they can be employed for
diversified data types.
In [84], Ribeiro et al. present the Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) approach f which does not depend on the type of data, nor on
the type of black box b to be opened, nor on a particular type of comprehensible local predictor cl or explanation εl . In other words, LIME can return an
understandable explanation for the prediction obtained by any black box. The
main intuition of LIME is that the explanation may be derived locally from the
records generated randomly in the neighborhood of the record to be explained,
and weighted according to their proximity to it. In their experiments, the authors
adopt linear models as comprehensible local predictor cl returning the importance of the features as explanation εl . As black box b the following classifiers are

Open The Black Box Survey

31

tested: decision trees, logistic regression, nearest neighbors, SVM and random
forest. A weak point of this approach is the required transformation of any type
of data in a binary format which is claimed to be human interpretable. [83] and
[82] propose extensions of LIME with an analysis of particular aspects and cases.
A similar approach is presented in [98], where Turner et al. design the Model
Explanation System (MES) f that augments black box predictions with explanations by using a Monte Carlo algorithm. In practice, they derive a scoring
system for finding the best explanation based on formal requirements and consider that the explanations εl are simple logical statements, i.e., decision rules.
The authors test logistic regression and SVMs as black box b.

8

Solving the Black Box Inspection Problem

In this section we review the methods for opening the black box facing the black
box inspection problem (see Section 4.1). Given a black box solving a classification problem, the inspection problem consists in providing a representation
for understanding either how the black box model works or why the black box
returns certain predictions more likely than others. In [88], Seifet et al. provide
a survey of visualizations of DNNs by defining a classification scheme describing
visualization goals and methods. They found that most papers use pixel displays to show neuron activations. As in the previous sections, in the following
we propose a classification based on the type of technique f used to provide the
visual explanation of how the black box works. Most papers in this section try
to inspect NNs and DNNs.
8.1

Inspection via Sensitivity Analysis

In this section we review the works solving the black box inspection problem by
implementing function f using Sensitivity Analysis (SA). Sensitivity analysis
studies the correlation between the uncertainty in the output of a predictor and
that one in its inputs [86]. All the following methods work on tabular datasets.
Sensitivity analysis for “illuminating” the black box was first proposed by
Olden in [71] where a visual method for understanding the mechanism of NN
is described. In particular, they propose to assess the importance of axon connections and the contribution of input variables by means of sensitivity analysis
and Neural Interpretation Diagram (NID) to remove not significant connections
and improve the network interpretability.
In [7] the authors propose a procedure based on Gaussian Process Classification (GDP) which allows explaining the decisions of any classification method
through an explanation vector. That is, the procedure f is black box agnostic.
The explanation vectors are visualized to highlight the features that were most
influential for the decision of a particular instance. Thus, we are dealing with an
inspection for outcome explanation εl .
In [21], Datta et al. introduce a set of Quantitative Input Influence (QII)
measures f capturing how much inputs influence the outputs of black box predictors. These measures provide a foundation for transparency reports of black

32

R. Guidotti et al.

Fig. 12. (Left). From [16] VEC curve and histogram for the pH input feature (x-axis)
and the respective high quality wine probability outcome (left of y-axis) and frequency
(right of y-axis). (Right). From [48] Age at enrollment shown as line plot (top) and
partial dependence bar (middle). Color denotes the predicted risk of the outcome.

box predictors. In practice, the output consists in the feature importance for
outcome predictions.
[92] studies the problem of attributing the prediction of a DNN (the black
box b) to its input features. Two fundamental axioms are identified: sensitivity
and implementation invariance. These axioms guide the design of an attribution
method f , called Integrated Gradients (IG), that requires no modification to the
original network. Differently from the previous work, this approach is tested on
different types of data.
Finally, Cortez in [16,17] uses sensitivity analysis based and visualization
techniques f to explain black boxes b. The sensitivity measures are variables
calculated as the range, gradient, variance of the prediction. Then, the visualizations realized are barplots for the features importance, and Variable Effect
Characteristic curve (VEC) [18] plotting the input values (x-axis) versus the
(average) outcome responses (see Figure 12 - (left)).
8.2

Inspection via Partial Dependence

In this section we report a set of approaches solving the black box inspection
problem by implementing a function f which returns a Partial Dependence Plot
(PDP). Partial dependence plot is a tool for visualizing the relationship between
the response variable and predictor variables in a reduced feature space. All the
approaches presented in this section are black box agnostic and are tested on
tabular datasets.
In [35], the authors present an approach f aimed at evaluating the importance of non-additive interactions between any set of features. The implementa-

Open The Black Box Survey

33

tion uses the Variable Interaction Network (VIN) visualization generated from
the use of ANOVA statistical methodology (a technique to calculate partial dependence plots). VIN allows to visualize the importance of the features together
with their interdependences. Goldstein et al. provide in [30] a technique f which
extends classical PDP named Individual Conditional Expectation (ICE) to visualize the model approximated by a black box b that help in visualizing the
average partial relationship between the outcome and some features. ICE plots
improves PDP by highlighting the variation in the fitted values across the range
of covariates. In [48], Krause et al. introduce random perturbations on the black
box b input values to understand to which extent every feature impact the prediction through a visual inspection using the PDPs f . The main idea of Prospector
is to observe how the output varies by varying the input changing one variable at
a time. It provides an effective way to understand which are the most important
features for a certain prediction εl so that it can help in providing a valuable
interpretation (see Figure 12 - (right)). In [2] the authors propose a method f
for auditing (i.e., inspecting) black box predictors b, studying to which extent
existing models benefit of specific features in the data. This method does not
assume any knowledge on the models behavior. In particular, the method f focuses on indirect influence and visualizes the global inspection εg through an
obscurity vs. accuracy plot (the features are obscured one after the other). Yet,
the dependence of a black box b on its input features is relatively quantified by
the procedure f proposed in [1], where the authors present an iterative procedure based on Orthogonal Projection of Input Attributes (OPIA), for enabling
the interpretability of black box predictors.
8.3

Inspection via Other Approaches

In the following, we present solutions for the black box inspection problem that
adopt an approach f which can be categorized as none of the previous ones.
They all refer to DNNs as black box b and are not generalizable.
[110] proposes two tools for visualizing and interpreting DNNs and for understanding what computations DNNs perform at intermediate layers and which
neurons activate. These tools visualize the activations of each layer of a trained
CNN during the process of images or videos. Moreover, they visualize the features of the different layers by regularized optimization in image space. Yosinski
et al. found that by analyzing the live activations, changing in correspondence
of different inputs, helps to generate an explanation on the DNNs behave. [96]
shows the extraction of a visual interpretation of a DNN using a decision tree.
The method TreeView f works as follows. Given the black box b as a DNN, it
first decomposes the feature space into K (user defined) potentially overlapping
factors. Then, it builds a meta feature for each of the K clusters and a random
forest that predicts the cluster labels. Finally, it generates and shows a surrogate
decision tree from the forest as an approximation of the black box.
Shwartz-Ziv et al. in [90] showed the effectiveness of the Information Plane
f visualization of DNNs highlighting that the empirical error minimization of

34

R. Guidotti et al.

each stochastic gradient descent phase epoch is always followed by a slow representation compression.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that [81] presents the discovery that a single
neuron unit of a DNN can perform alone a sentiment analysis task after the
training of the network reaching the same level of performance of strong baselines. Also in [111], Zeiler et al. backtrack the network computations to identify
which image patches are responsible for certain neural activations.

9

Solving the Transparent Box Design Problem

In this section we review the approaches designed to solve the classification
problem using a transparent method which is locally or globally interpretable
on its own, i.e., solving the transparent box design problem (see Section 4.1).
9.1

Explanation via Rule Extraction

In this section we present the most relevant state of the art works solving the
transparent box design problem by means of comprehensible predictors c based
on rules. In these cases, cg is a comprehensible global predictor providing the
whole set of rules leading to any possible decision: a global explanator εg is made
available by cg . All the methods presented in this section work on tabular data.
In [109] the authors propose the approach f named CPAR (Classification
based on Predictive Association Rules) combining the positive aspects of both
associative classification and traditional rule-based classification. Indeed, following the basic idea of FOIL [80], CPAR does not generate a large set of candidates
as in associative classification, and applies a greedy approach for generating rules
cg directly from training data.
Wang and Rudin, in [102] propose a method f to extract falling rule lists
cg (see Section 3.3) instead of classical rules. The falling rule lists extraction
method f relies on a Bayesian framework.
In [57], the authors tackle the problem to build a system for medical scoring which is interpretable and characterized by high accuracy. To this end, they
propose Bayesian Rule Lists (BRL) f to extract the comprehensible global predictor cg as a decision list. A decision list consists of a series of if-then statements
discretizing the whole feature space into a set of simple and directly interpretable
decision statements.
A Bayesian approach is followed also in [91]. The authors propose algorithms
f for learning Two-Level Boolean Rules (TLBR) in Conjunctive Normal Form
or Disjunctive Normal Form cg . Two formulations are proposed. The first one
is an integer program whose objective function combines the total number of
errors and the total number of features used in the rule. The second formulation
replaces the 0-1 classification error with the Hamming distance from the current
two-level rule to the closest rule that correctly classifies a sample. In [54] the
authors propose a method f exploiting a two-level boolean rule predictor to

Open The Black Box Survey

35

solve the black box model explanation, i.e., the transparent approach is used in
the reverse engineering approach to explain the black box.
Yet another type of rule is exploited in [53]. Here, Lakkaraju et al. propose a
framework f for generating prediction models, which are both interpretable and
accuratem, by extracting Interpretable Decision Sets (IDS) cg , i.e., independent
if-then rules. Since each rule is independently applicable, decision sets are simple,
succinct, and easily to be interpreted. In particular, this approach can learn
accurate, short, and non-overlapping rules covering the whole feature space.
Rule Sets are adopted in [104] as comprehensible global predictor cg . The
authors present a Bayesian framework f for learning Rule Sets. A set of parameters is provided to the user to encourage the model to have a desired size and
shape in order to conform with a domain-specific definition of interpretability. A
Rule Set consists of a small number of short rules where an instance is classified
as positive if it satisfies at least one of the rules. The rule set provides reasons
for predictions, and also descriptions of a particular class.
Finally, in [64] an approach f is designed to learn both sparse conjunctive
and disjunctive clause rules from training data through a linear programming
solution. The optimization formulation leads the resulting rule-based global predictor cg (1Rule) to automatically balance accuracy and interpretability.
9.2

Explanation via Prototype Selection

In this section we present the design of a set of approaches f for solving the
transparent box design problem returning a comprehensible predictor cg equipped
with a human understandable global explanator function εg . A prototype, also
referred to with the name artifact or archetype, is an object that is representative
of a set of similar instances. A prototype can be an instance x part of the training
set D = {X, Y }, or can lie anywhere in the space X m ×Y of the dataset D. Having
only prototypes among the observed points is desirable for interpretability, but
it can also improve the classification error. As an example of a prototype we
can consider the record minimizing the sum of the distances with all the other
points of a set (like in K-Medoids) or the record generated averaging the value
of the features of a set of points (like in K-Means) [95]. Different definitions and
requirements to find a prototype are specified in each work using the prototypes
to explain the black box.
In [8], Bien et al. design the transparent Prototype Selection (PS) approach
f that first seeks for the best prototype (two strategies are proposed), and then
assigns the points in D to the label corresponding to the prototype. In particular, they face the problem of recognizing hand written digits. In this approach,
every instance can be described by more than one prototype, and more than a
prototype can refer to the same label (e.g., there can be more than one prototype
for digit zero, more than one for digit one, etc.). The comprehensible predictor
cg provides a global explanation in which every instance must have a prototype
corresponding to its label in its neighborhood; no instances should have a prototype with a different label in its neighborhood, and there should be as few
prototypes as possible.

36

R. Guidotti et al.

Kim et al. in [44,45] design the Bayesian Case Model (BCM) comprehensible predictor cl able to learn prototypes by clustering the data and to learn
subspaces. Each prototype is the representative sample of a given cluster, while
the subspaces are set of features which are important in identifying the cluster
prototype. That is, the global explanator εg returns a set of prototypes together
with their fundamental features. Possible drawbacks of this approach are the
high number of parameters (e.g., number of clusters) and various types of probability distributions which are assumed to be correct for each type of data. [42]
proposes an extension of BCM which exploits humans interaction to improve
the prototypes. Finally, in [43] the approach is further expanded to include criticisms, where a criticism is an instance that does not fit the model very well,
i.e., a counter-example part of the cluster of a prototype.
With respect to prototypes and DNN, [63] proposes a method b to change the
image representations in order to use only information from the original image
representation and from a generic natural image prior. This task is mainly related
to image reconstruction rather than black box explanation, but it is realized
with the aim of understanding the example to which the DNN b is related to
producing a certain prediction by realizing a sort of artificial image prototype.
There is a significant amount of work in understanding the representation of
DNN by means of artifact images, [41,100,105,111].
We conclude this section presenting how [25] deals with artifacts in DNNs.
Finding a single representative prototype by perturbation, deletion, preservation, and similar approaches has the risk of triggering artifacts of the black box.
As discussed in Section 8.3, NN and DNN are known to be affected by surprising
artifacts. For example, [52] shows that a nearly-invisible image perturbation can
lead a NN to classify an object for another; [69] constructs abstract synthetic
images that are classified arbitrarily; [63] finds deconstructed versions of an image which are indistinguishable from the viewpoint of the DNN from the original
image, and also with respect to texts [58] inserts typos and random sentences in
real texts that are classified arbitrarily. These examples demonstrate that it is
possible to find particular inputs that can drive the DNN to generate nonsensical or unexpected outputs. While not all artifacts look “unnatural”, nevertheless
they form a subset of images that are sampled with negligible probability when
the network is normally operated. In our opinion, two guidelines should be followed to avoid such artifacts in generating explanations for DNNs, and for every
black box in general. The first one is that powerful explanations should, just like
any predictor, generalize as much as possible. Second, the artifacts should not
be representative of natural perturbations.
9.3

Explanation via Other Approaches

In the following we present solutions for the transparent box design problem
adopting approaches f that can not be categorized as the previous ones. [47]
describes a method f based on Naive Bayes aimed to explain individual predictions εl of black boxes b. The proposed approach exploits notions from coalitional
game theory, and explains predictions utilizing the contribution of the value of

Open The Black Box Survey

37

different individual features εl (see Figure 2). The method is agnostic with respect to the black box used and is tested only on tabular data. Finally, in [103]
Wang et al. propose a method f named OT-SpAMs based on oblique tree sparse
additive models for obtaining a global interpretable predictor cg as a decision
tree. OT-SpAMs divides the feature space into regions using a sparse oblique tree
splitting and assigns local sparse additive experts (leaf of the tree) to individual
regions. Basically, OT-SpAMs passes from complicated trees/linear models to
an explainable tree εg .

10

Conclusion

In this paper we have presented a comprehensive overview of methods proposed
in the literature for explaining decision systems based on opaque and obscure
machine learning models. First, we have identified the different components of
the family of the explanation problems. In particular, we have provided a formal
definition of each problem belonging to that family capturing for each one the
proper peculiarity. We have named these problems: black box model explanation
problem, black box outcome explanation problem, black box inspection problem
and transparent box design problem. Then, we have proposed a classification
of methods studied in the literature which take into account the following dimensions: the specific explanation problem addressed, the type of explanator
adopted, the black box model opened, and the type of data used as input by the
black box model.
As shown in this paper, a considerable amount of work has already been
done in different scientific communities and especially in the machine learning
and data mining communities. The first one is mostly focused on describing how
the black boxes work, while the second one is more interested into explaining
the decisions even without understanding the details on how the opaque decision
systems work in general.
The analysis of the literature conducted in this paper has led to the conclusion that despite many approaches have been proposed to explain black boxes,
some important scientific questions still remain unanswered. One of the most
important open problems is that, until now, there is no agreement on what an
explanation is. Indeed, some works provide as explanation a set of rules, others
a decision tree, others a prototype (especially in the context of images). It is
evident that the research activity in this field completely ignored the importance of studying a general and common formalism for defining an explanation,
identifying which are the properties that an explanation should guarantee, e.g.,
soundness, completeness, compactness and comprehensibility. Concerning this
last property, there is no work that seriously addresses the problem of quantifying the grade of comprehensibility of an explanation for humans, although it is
of fundamental importance. The study of measures able to capture this aspect
is challenging because it also consider also aspects like the expertise of the user
or the amount of time available to understand the explanation. The definition
of a (mathematical) formalism for explanations and of tools for measuring how

38

R. Guidotti et al.

much an explanation is comprehensible for humans would improve the practical
applicability of most of the approaches presented in this paper.
Moreover, there are other open research questions related to black boxes and
explanations that are starting to be treated by the scientific community and that
deserve attention and more investigation.
A common assumption of all categories of works presented in this paper is
that the features used by the black box decision system are completely known.
However, a black box might use additional information besides that explicitly
asked to the user. For example, it might link the user’s information with different
data sources for augmenting the data to be exploited for the prediction. Therefore, an important aspect to be investigated is to understand how an explanation
might also be derived in cases where black box systems make decisions in presence of latent features. An interesting starting point for this research direction
is the framework proposed in [55] by Lakkaraju et al. for the evaluation of the
prediction models performances on labeled data where the decision of decisionmakers (either humans or black-boxes) is taken in the presence of unobserved
features.
Another open research question is related to providing explanations in the
field of recommender systems. When a suggestion is provided to a customer,
it should come together with the reasons for this recommendation. In [67] the
authors define a case-based reasoning approach to generate recommendations
with the opportunity of obtaining both the explanation of the recommendation
process and of the produced recommendations.
Lastly, a further interesting point is the fact that explanations are important
on their own and predictors might be learned directly from explanations. A
starting study of this aspect is [49] that presents a software agent learned to
simulate the Mario Bros game only utilizing explanations rather than the logs
of previous plays.

Table 3. Summary of methods for opening and explaining black boxes with respect
to the problem faced.
Problem
Model Explanation
Outcome Explanation
Black Box Inspection
Transparent Design

References
[20], [50], [9], [39], [14], [29], [114], [87], [32], [94], [5], [19], [37], [115],
[6], [70], [28], [65], [22], [61], [33], [51], [97]
[108], [25], [113], [89], [56], [83], [98]
[71], [7], [92], [16], [35], [30], [48], [2], [1], [110], [96], [90], [81]
[109], [102], [57], [91], [53], [104], [64], [8], [44], [63], [47], [103]

Open The Black Box Survey

A

39

Supplementary Materials

Acknowledgement
This work is partially supported by the European Community’s H2020 Program
under the funding scheme “INFRAIA-1-2014-2015: Research Infrastructures”,
grant agreement 654024, SoBigData, http://www.sobigdata.eu.

References
1. J. Adebayo and L. Kagal. Iterative orthogonal feature projection for diagnosing
bias in black-box models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04967, 2016.
2. P. Adler, C. Falk, S. A. Friedler, G. Rybeck, C. Scheidegger, B. Smith, and
S. Venkatasubramanian. Auditing black-box models for indirect influence. In
Data Mining (ICDM), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on, pages 1–10.
IEEE, 2016.
3. R. Agrawal, R. Srikant, et al. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In
Proc. 20th int. conf. very large data bases, VLDB, volume 1215, pages 487–499,
1994.
4. Y. A. A. S. Aldeen, M. Salleh, and M. A. Razzaque. A comprehensive review on
privacy preserving data mining. SpringerPlus, 4(1):694, 2015.
5. R. Andrews, J. Diederich, and A. B. Tickle. Survey and critique of techniques for
extracting rules from trained artificial neural networks. Knowledge-based systems,
8(6):373–389, 1995.
6. M. G. Augasta and T. Kathirvalavakumar. Reverse engineering the neural networks for rule extraction in classification problems. Neural processing letters,
35(2):131–150, 2012.
7. D. Baehrens, T. Schroeter, S. Harmeling, M. Kawanabe, K. Hansen, and K.-R.
MÃžller. How to explain individual classification decisions. Journal of Machine
Learning Research, 11(Jun):1803–1831, 2010.
8. J. Bien and R. Tibshirani. Prototype selection for interpretable classification.
The Annals of Applied Statistics, pages 2403–2424, 2011.

Table 4. Summary of methods for opening and explaining black boxes with respect
to the explanator adopted.
Explanator
Decition Tree (DT)
Decision Rules (DR)
Features Importance (FI)
Saliency Mask (SM)
Sensitivity Analysis (SA)
Partial Dependence Plot (PDP)
Neurons Activation (NA)
Prototype Selection (PS)

References
[20], [50], [9], [39], [14], [23], [29], [114],
[87], [32], [94], [51], [96], [103]
[5], [19], [37], [115], [6], [70], [28], [65], [22],
[98], [109], [102], [57], [91], [53], [104], [64]
[61], [33], [97], [83]
[108], [25], [113], [89], [56]
[71], [7], [92], [16]
[35], [30], [48], [2], [1]
[110], [90], [81]
[8], [44], [63]

40

R. Guidotti et al.

9. O. Boz. Extracting decision trees from trained neural networks. In Proceedings of
the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and
data mining, pages 456–461. ACM, 2002.
10. L. Breiman, J. Friedman, C. J. Stone, and R. A. Olshen. Classification and
regression trees. CRC press, 1984.
11. A. Caliskan-Islam, J. J. Bryson, and A. Narayanan. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora necessarily contain human biases. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1608.07187, 2016.
12. C. Carter, E. Renuart, M. Saunders, and C. C. Wu. The credit card market and
regulation: In need of repair. NC Banking Inst., 10:23, 2006.
13. R. Caruana, Y. Lou, J. Gehrke, P. Koch, M. Sturm, and N. Elhadad. Intelligible
models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1721–1730. ACM, 2015.
14. H. Chipman, E. George, and R. McCulloh. Making sense of a forest of trees.
Computing Science and Statistics, pages 84–92, 1998.
15. G. Comandè. Regulating algorithms regulation? first ethico-legal principles, problems, and opportunities of algorithms. In Transparent Data Mining for Big and
Small Data, pages 169–206. Springer, 2017.
16. P. Cortez and M. J. Embrechts. Opening black box data mining models using
sensitivity analysis. In Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM),
2011 IEEE Symposium on, pages 341–348. IEEE, 2011.
17. P. Cortez and M. J. Embrechts. Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models. Information Sciences, 225:1–17,
2013.
18. P. Cortez, J. Teixeira, A. Cerdeira, F. Almeida, T. Matos, and J. Reis. Using
data mining for wine quality assessment. In Discovery Science, volume 5808,
pages 66–79. Springer, 2009.
19. M. Craven and J. W. Shavlik. Using sampling and queries to extract rules from
trained neural networks. In ICML, pages 37–45, 1994.
20. M. Craven and J. W. Shavlik. Extracting tree-structured representations of
trained networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages
24–30, 1996.
21. A. Datta, S. Sen, and Y. Zick. Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input
influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems. In Security and Privacy
(SP), 2016 IEEE Symposium on, pages 598–617. IEEE, 2016.
22. H. Deng.
Interpreting tree ensembles with intrees.
arXiv preprint
arXiv:1408.5456, 2014.

Table 5. Summary of methods for opening and explaining black boxes with respect
to the black box explained.
Black Box
Neural Network (NN)
Tree Ensemble (TE)
Support Vector Machines (SVM)
Deep Neural Network (DNN)
Agnostic black box (AGN)

References
[20], [50], [9], [39], [23], [5], [19], [37], [115], [6], [71]
[14], [23], [29], [114], [87], [32], [94], [22], [97]
[70], [28], [65]
[108], [25], [113], [89], [56], [92], [110], [96], [90], [81]
[61], [33], [51], [83], [98], [7], [16], [35], [30], [48], [2], [1]

Open The Black Box Survey

41

23. P. Domingos. Knowledge discovery via multiple models. Intelligent Data Analysis,
2(1-4):187–202, 1998.
24. F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine
learning. 2017.
25. R. Fong and A. Vedaldi. Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful
perturbation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03296, 2017.
26. E. Frank and I. H. Witten. Generating accurate rule sets without global optimization. 1998.
27. A. A. Freitas. Comprehensible classification models: a position paper. ACM
SIGKDD explorations newsletter, 15(1):1–10, 2014.
28. G. Fung, S. Sandilya, and R. B. Rao. Rule extraction from linear support vector
machines. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference
on Knowledge discovery in data mining, pages 32–40. ACM, 2005.
29. R. D. Gibbons, G. Hooker, M. D. Finkelman, D. J. Weiss, P. A. Pilkonis, E. Frank,
T. Moore, and D. J. Kupfer. The cad-mdd: a computerized adaptive diagnostic
screening tool for depression. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 74(7):669, 2013.
30. A. Goldstein, A. Kapelner, J. Bleich, and E. Pitkin. Peeking inside the black box:
Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation.
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 24(1):44–65, 2015.
31. B. Goodman and S. Flaxman. Eu regulations on algorithmic decision-making and
a right to explanation. In ICML workshop on human interpretability in machine
learning (WHI 2016), New York, NY. http://arxiv. org/abs/1606.08813 v1, 2016.
32. S. Hara and K. Hayashi. Making tree ensembles interpretable. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1606.05390, 2016.
33. A. Henelius, K. Puolamäki, H. Boström, L. Asker, and P. Papapetrou. A peek into
the black box: exploring classifiers by randomization. Data mining and knowledge
discovery, 28(5-6):1503–1529, 2014.
34. J. M. Hofman, A. Sharma, and D. J. Watts. Prediction and explanation in social
systems. Science, 355(6324):486–488, 2017.
35. G. Hooker. Discovering additive structure in black box functions. In Proceedings
of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and
data mining, pages 575–580. ACM, 2004.
36. J. Huysmans, K. Dejaeger, C. Mues, J. Vanthienen, and B. Baesens. An empirical
evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive
models. Decision Support Systems, 51(1):141–154, 2011.
37. U. Johansson, R. König, and L. Niklasson. Rule extraction from trained neural networks using genetic programming. In 13th International Conference on
Artificial Neural Networks, pages 13–16, 2003.
38. U. Johansson, R. König, and L. Niklasson. The truth is in there-rule extraction
from opaque models using genetic programming. In FLAIRS Conference, pages
658–663, 2004.
39. U. Johansson and L. Niklasson. Evolving decision trees using oracle guides. In
Computational Intelligence and Data Mining, 2009. CIDM’09. IEEE Symposium
on, pages 238–244. IEEE, 2009.
40. U. Johansson, L. Niklasson, and R. König. Accuracy vs. comprehensibility in
data mining models. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on
information fusion, volume 1, pages 295–300, 2004.
41. H. Kato and T. Harada. Image reconstruction from bag-of-visual-words. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages
955–962, 2014.

42

R. Guidotti et al.

42. B. Kim, E. Glassman, B. Johnson, and J. Shah. ibcm: Interactive bayesian case
model empowering humans via intuitive interaction. 2015.
43. B. Kim, O. O. Koyejo, and R. Khanna. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In Advances In Neural Information Processing
Systems, pages 2280–2288, 2016.
44. B. Kim, C. Rudin, and J. A. Shah. The bayesian case model: A generative
approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification. In Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1952–1960, 2014.
45. B. Kim, J. A. Shah, and F. Doshi-Velez. Mind the gap: A generative approach to
interpretable feature selection and extraction. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems, pages 2260–2268, 2015.
46. P. W. Koh and P. Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence
functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04730, 2017.
47. I. Kononenko et al. An efficient explanation of individual classifications using
game theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(Jan):1–18, 2010.
48. J. Krause, A. Perer, and K. Ng. Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of
black-box machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 5686–5697. ACM, 2016.
49. S. Krening, B. Harrison, K. M. Feigh, C. L. Isbell, M. Riedl, and A. Thomaz.
Learning from explanations using sentiment and advice in rl. IEEE Transactions
on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 9(1):44–55, 2017.
50. R. Krishnan, G. Sivakumar, and P. Bhattacharya. Extracting decision trees from
trained neural networks. Pattern recognition, 32(12), 1999.
51. S. Krishnan and E. Wu. Palm: Machine learning explanations for iterative debugging. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics,
page 4. ACM, 2017.
52. A. Kurakin, I. Goodfellow, and S. Bengio. Adversarial examples in the physical
world. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.02533, 2016.
53. H. Lakkaraju, S. H. Bach, and J. Leskovec. Interpretable decision sets: A joint
framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM
SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,
pages 1675–1684. ACM, 2016.
54. H. Lakkaraju, E. Kamar, R. Caruana, and J. Leskovec. Interpretable & explorable
approximations of black box models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01154, 2017.
55. H. Lakkaraju, J. Kleinberg, J. Leskovec, J. Ludwig, and S. Mullainathan. The
selective labels problem: Evaluating algorithmic predictions in the presence of unobservables. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference
on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 275–284. ACM, 2017.
56. T. Lei, R. Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. Rationalizing neural predictions. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1606.04155, 2016.
57. B. Letham, C. Rudin, T. H. McCormick, D. Madigan, et al. Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model.
The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(3):1350–1371, 2015.
58. B. Liang, H. Li, M. Su, P. Bian, X. Li, and W. Shi. Deep text classification can
be fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08006, 2017.
59. Z. C. Lipton.
The mythos of model interpretability.
arXiv preprint
arXiv:1606.03490, 2016.
60. Y. Lou, R. Caruana, and J. Gehrke. Intelligible models for classification and
regression. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on
Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 150–158. ACM, 2012.

Open The Black Box Survey

43

61. Y. Lou, R. Caruana, J. Gehrke, and G. Hooker. Accurate intelligible models with
pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international
conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 623–631. ACM, 2013.
62. S. Lowry and G. Macpherson. A blot on the profession. British medical journal
(Clinical research ed.), 296(6623):657, 1988.
63. A. Mahendran and A. Vedaldi. Understanding deep image representations by
inverting them. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, pages 5188–5196, 2015.
64. D. M. Malioutov, K. R. Varshney, A. Emad, and S. Dash. Learning interpretable
classification rules with boolean compressed sensing. In Transparent Data Mining
for Big and Small Data, pages 95–121. Springer, 2017.
65. D. Martens, B. Baesens, T. Van Gestel, and J. Vanthienen. Comprehensible credit
scoring models using rule extraction from support vector machines. European
journal of operational research, 183(3):1466–1476, 2007.
66. D. Martens, J. Vanthienen, W. Verbeke, and B. Baesens. Performance of classification models from a user perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(4):782–793,
2011.
67. D. McSherry. Explanation in recommender systems. Artificial Intelligence Review,
24(2):179–197, 2005.
68. P. M. Murphy and M. J. Pazzani. Id2-of-3: Constructive induction of m-of-n concepts for discriminators in decision trees. In Proceedings of the eighth international
workshop on machine learning, pages 183–187, 1991.
69. A. Nguyen, J. Yosinski, and J. Clune. Deep neural networks are easily fooled:
High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 427–436, 2015.
70. H. Núñez, C. Angulo, and A. Català. Rule extraction from support vector machines. In Esann, pages 107–112, 2002.
71. J. D. Olden and D. A. Jackson. Illuminating the black box: a randomization
approach for understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks.
Ecological modelling, 154(1):135–150, 2002.
72. F. E. Otero and A. A. Freitas. Improving the interpretability of classification
rules discovered by an ant colony algorithm. In Proceedings of the 15th annual
conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 73–80. ACM, 2013.
73. G. L. Pappa, A. J. Baines, and A. A. Freitas. Predicting post-synaptic activity
in proteins with data mining. Bioinformatics, 21(suppl 2):ii19–ii25, 2005.
74. F. Pasquale. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and
information. Harvard University Press, 2015.
75. M. J. Pazzani, S. Mani, W. R. Shankle, et al. Acceptance of rules generated by
machine learning among medical experts. Methods of information in medicine,
40(5):380–385, 2001.
76. D. Pedreshi, S. Ruggieri, and F. Turini. Discrimination-aware data mining. In
Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge
discovery and data mining, pages 560–568. ACM, 2008.
77. J. R. Quinlan. Generating production rules from decision trees. In ijcai, volume 87, pages 304–307, 1987.
78. J. R. Quinlan. Simplifying decision trees. International journal of man-machine
studies, 27(3):221–234, 1987.
79. J. R. Quinlan. C4. 5: Programs for Machine Learning. Elsevier, 1993.
80. J. R. Quinlan and R. M. Cameron-Jones. Foil: A midterm report. In European
conference on machine learning, pages 1–20. Springer, 1993.

44

R. Guidotti et al.

81. A. Radford, R. Jozefowicz, and I. Sutskever. Learning to generate reviews and
discovering sentiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01444, 2017.
82. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. Model-agnostic interpretability of
machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05386, 2016.
83. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. Nothing else matters: Modelagnostic explanations by identifying prediction invariance.
arXiv preprint
arXiv:1611.05817, 2016.
84. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. Why should i trust you?: Explaining
the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135–1144.
ACM, 2016.
85. A. Romei and S. Ruggieri. A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis.
The Knowledge Engineering Review, 29(5):582–638, 2014.
86. A. Saltelli. Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk analysis,
22(3):579–590, 2002.
87. V. Schetinin, J. E. Fieldsend, D. Partridge, T. J. Coats, W. J. Krzanowski, R. M.
Everson, T. C. Bailey, and A. Hernandez. Confident interpretation of bayesian decision tree ensembles for clinical applications. IEEE Transactions on Information
Technology in Biomedicine, 11(3):312–319, 2007.
88. C. Seifert, A. Aamir, A. Balagopalan, D. Jain, A. Sharma, S. Grottel, and
S. Gumhold. Visualizations of deep neural networks in computer vision: A survey.
In Transparent Data Mining for Big and Small Data, pages 123–144. Springer,
2017.
89. R. R. Selvaraju, A. Das, R. Vedantam, M. Cogswell, D. Parikh, and D. Batra.
Grad-cam: Why did you say that? visual explanations from deep networks via
gradient-based localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02391, 2016.
90. R. Shwartz-Ziv and N. Tishby. Opening the black box of deep neural networks
via information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00810, 2017.
91. G. Su, D. Wei, K. R. Varshney, and D. M. Malioutov. Interpretable two-level
boolean rule learning for classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07361, 2015.
92. M. Sundararajan, A. Taly, and Q. Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01365, 2017.
93. C. Szegedy, W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, J. Bruna, D. Erhan, I. Goodfellow,
and R. Fergus. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1312.6199, 2013.
94. H. F. Tan, G. Hooker, and M. T. Wells. Tree space prototypes: Another look at
making tree ensembles interpretable. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07115, 2016.
95. P.-N. Tan et al. Introduction to data mining. Pearson Education India, 2006.
96. J. J. Thiagarajan, B. Kailkhura, P. Sattigeri, and K. N. Ramamurthy. Treeview:
Peeking into deep neural networks via feature-space partitioning. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1611.07429, 2016.
97. G. Tolomei, F. Silvestri, A. Haines, and M. Lalmas. Interpretable predictions
of tree-based ensembles via actionable feature tweaking. In Proceedings of the
23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data
Mining, pages 465–474. ACM, 2017.
98. R. Turner. A model explanation system. In Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), 2016 IEEE 26th International Workshop on, pages 1–6. IEEE,
2016.
99. W. Verbeke, D. Martens, C. Mues, and B. Baesens. Building comprehensible customer churn prediction models with advanced rule induction techniques. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(3):2354–2364, 2011.

Open The Black Box Survey

45

100. C. Vondrick, A. Khosla, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Torralba. Hoggles: Visualizing
object detection features. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Computer Vision, pages 1–8, 2013.
101. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and L. Floridi. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation.
International Data Privacy Law, 7(2):76–99, 2017.
102. F. Wang and C. Rudin. Falling rule lists. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics,
pages 1013–1022, 2015.
103. J. Wang, R. Fujimaki, and Y. Motohashi. Trading interpretability for accuracy:
Oblique treed sparse additive models. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1245–
1254. ACM, 2015.
104. T. Wang, C. Rudin, F. Velez-Doshi, Y. Liu, E. Klampfl, and P. MacNeille.
Bayesian rule sets for interpretable classification. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2016
IEEE 16th International Conference on, pages 1269–1274. IEEE, 2016.
105. P. Weinzaepfel, H. Jégou, and P. Pérez. Reconstructing an image from its local
descriptors. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE
Conference on, pages 337–344. IEEE, 2011.
106. A. Weller. Challenges for transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01870, 2017.
107. D. Wettschereck, D. W. Aha, and T. Mohri. A review and empirical evaluation
of feature weighting methods for a class of lazy learning algorithms. In Lazy
learning, pages 273–314. Springer, 1997.
108. K. Xu, J. Ba, R. Kiros, K. Cho, A. Courville, R. Salakhudinov, R. Zemel, and
Y. Bengio. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual
attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2048–2057,
2015.
109. X. Yin and J. Han. Cpar: Classification based on predictive association rules. In
Proceedings of the 2003 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages
331–335. SIAM, 2003.
110. J. Yosinski, J. Clune, A. Nguyen, T. Fuchs, and H. Lipson. Understanding neural
networks through deep visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06579, 2015.
111. M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In European conference on computer vision, pages 818–833. Springer,
2014.
112. C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals. Understanding deep
learning requires rethinking generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.03530,
2016.
113. B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Lapedriza, A. Oliva, and A. Torralba. Learning deep
features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2921–2929, 2016.
114. Y. Zhou and G. Hooker. Interpreting models via single tree approximation. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1610.09036, 2016.
115. Z.-H. Zhou, Y. Jiang, and S.-F. Chen. Extracting symbolic rules from trained
neural network ensembles. Ai Communications, 16(1):3–15, 2003.

