Decision trees (DTs) epitomize the ideal of interpretability of machine learning (ML) models. The interpretability of decision trees motivates explainability approaches by so-called intrinsic interpretability, and it is at the core of recent proposals for applying interpretable ML models in high-risk applications. The belief in DT interpretability is justified by the fact that explanations for DT predictions are generally expected to be succinct. Indeed, in the case of DTs, explanations correspond to DT paths. Since decision trees are ideally shallow, and so paths contain far fewer features than the total number of features, explanations in DTs are expected to be succinct, and hence interpretable. This paper offers both theoretical and experimental arguments demonstrating that, as long as interpretability of decision trees equates with succinctness of explanations, then decision trees ought not be deemed interpretable. The paper introduces logically rigorous path explanations and path explanation redundancy, and proves that there exist functions for which decision trees must exhibit paths with arbitrarily large explanation redundancy. The paper also proves that only a very restricted class of functions can be represented with DTs that exhibit no explanation redundancy. In addition, the paper includes experimental results substantiating that path explanation redundancy is observed ubiquitously in decision trees, including those obtained using different tree learning algorithms, but also in a wide range of publicly available decision trees. The paper also proposes polynomial-time algorithms for eliminating path explanation redundancy, which in practice require negligible time to compute. Thus, these algorithms serve to indirectly attain irreducible, and so succinct, explanations for decision trees.
翻译:决策树(DTs)代表了机器学习模式(ML)的解释性理想。决策树的可解释性激励着所谓的内在解释性解释性的解释方法,这是最近关于应用高风险应用中可解释的 ML 模型的建议的核心。相信DT解释性的理由在于,对DT预测的解释一般预计是简洁的。事实上,对于DT,解释与DT 路径相对应。由于决策树理想地是浅薄的,因此路径包含的特性远远少于特性总数,因此DT的解释预期是简洁的,因此可以间接解释。本文提供了理论和实验性论点,表明只要决策树的可解释性等同于解释性解释性,那么决策树就不应被视为可解释性。文件提出了逻辑上严格的路径解释和路径解释性解释性,并证明存在决策树必须展示直截了解释性、解释性很强的路径。由于DTs解释性非常有限,因此DT解释性解释性要简洁,因此,DTsurity解释性解释性解释性解释性也是不精确的,此外,纸面上也含有可解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性的树木,因此,纸型解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性也包括可复制性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性,在公开性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性,在树程。纸上,在树中,在树中,在可理解性解释性解释性解释性解释性选择性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性,在,在,在,在可,在树中,在上,这种解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释性解释