# Fighting the disagreement in Explainable Machine Learning with consensus

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01288 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01288/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.00069/) (2018)
- [Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.11251/) (2021)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01602/) (2022)
- [Comparing Explanation Methods for Traditional Machine Learning Models Part 1: An Overview of Current Methods and Quantifying Their Disagreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08943/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning (ML) models are often valued by the accuracy of their predictions. However, in some areas of science, the inner workings of models are as relevant as their accuracy. To understand how ML models work internally, the use of interpretability algorithms is the preferred option. Unfortunately, despite the diversity of algorithms available, they often disagree in explaining a model, leading to contradictory explanations. To cope with this issue, consensus functions can be applied once the models have been explained. Nevertheless, the problem is not completely solved because the final result will depend on the selected consensus function and other factors. In this paper, six consensus functions have been evaluated for the explanation of five ML models. The models were previously trained on four synthetic datasets whose internal rules were known in advance. The models were then explained with model-agnostic local and global interpretability algorithms. Finally, consensus was calculated with six different functions, including one developed by the authors. The results demonstrated that the proposed function is fairer than the others and provides more consistent and accurate explanations.