<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1802.01933/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1802.01933/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models — mentioned by pkage</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25258092</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1802.01933:25258092</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:50:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;R Guidotti et. al[0] wrote a good literature survey on black-box explainers, and contains a summary table on page 20 of the current state of the art. In terms of designing NN-based ML, the above paper has some info and this paper by S Teso[1] is a good place to start looking further (though it is focused on XAL). SENNs are cool, but ultimately most inherenly interpretable models come down to classic ML (decision trees, linear/logreg, etc.) which is limiting compared to the power of NNs. Post-hoc explanations are basically the only option (esp. for DNNs). [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01933…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1802.01933/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item></channel></rss>
