No silver bullet: interpretable ML models must be explained.

Recent years witnessed a number of proposals for the use of the so-called interpretable models in specific application domains. These include high-risk, but also safety-critical domains. In contrast, other works reported some pitfalls of machine learning model interpretability, in part justified by the lack of a rigorous definition of what an interpretable model should represent. This study proposes to relate interpretability with the ability of a model to offer explanations of why a prediction is made given some point in feature space. Under this general goal of offering explanations to predictions, this study reveals additional limitations of interpretable models. Concretely, this study considers application domains where the purpose is to help human decision makers to understand why some prediction was made or why was not some other prediction made, and where irreducible (and so minimal) information is sought. In such domains, this study argues that answers to such why (or why not) questions can exhibit arbitrary redundancy, i.e., the answers can be simplified, as long as these answers are obtained by human inspection of the interpretable ML model representation.

Haplotype inference by Pure Parsimony: a survey.

Given a set of genotypes from a population, the process of recovering the haplotypes that explain the genotypes is called haplotype inference. The haplotype inference problem under the assumption of pure parsimony consists in finding the smallest number of haplotypes that explain a given set of genotypes. This problem is NP-hard. The original formulations for solving the Haplotype Inference by Pure Parsimony (HIPP) problem were based on integer linear programming and branch-and-bound techniques. More recently, solutions based on Boolean satisfiability, pseudo-Boolean optimization, and answer set programming have been shown to be remarkably more efficient. HIPP can now be regarded as a feasible approach for haplotype inference, which can be competitive with other different approaches. This article provides an overview of the methods for solving the HIPP problem, including preprocessing, bounding techniques, and heuristic approaches. The article also presents an empirical evaluation of exact HIPP solvers on a comprehensive set of synthetic and real problem instances. Moreover, the bounding techniques to the exact problem are evaluated. The final section compares and discusses the HIPP approach with a well-established statistical method that represents the reference algorithm for this problem.