Models That Are Interpretable But Not Transparent
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Faithful explanations are essential for machine learning models in high-stakes applications. Inherently interpretable models are well-suited for these applications because they naturally provide faithful explanations by revealing their decision logic. However, model designers often need to keep these models proprietary to maintain their value. This creates a tension: we need models that are interpretable--allowing human decision-makers to understand and justify predictions, but not transparent, so that the model's decision boundary is not easily replicated by attackers. Shielding the model's decision boundary is particularly challenging alongside the requirement of completely faithful explanations, since such explanations reveal the true logic of the model for an entire subspace around each query point. This work provides an approach, FaithfulDefense, that creates model explanations for logical models that are completely faithful, yet reveal as little as possible about the decision boundary. FaithfulDefense is based on a maximum set cover formulation, and we provide multiple formulations for it, taking advantage of submodularity.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2025.
Builds on
31 of 75 references.
References · 31
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 602
- 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
- 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 343
- 2018Knockoff Nets: Stealing Functionality of Black-Box Modelscited by 285
- 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 163
- 2020Data-Free Model Extractioncited by 121
- 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
19 more
- 2020MAZE: Data-Free Model Stealing Attack Using Zeroth-Order Gradient Estimationcited by 99
- 2020Generalized and Scalable Optimal Sparse Decision Treescited by 98
- 2019The Dangers of Post-hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual Explanationscited by 97
- 2018Exploring Connections Between Active Learning and Model Extractioncited by 84
- 2018Boolean Decision Rules via Column Generationcited by 79
- 2018Copycat CNN: Stealing Knowledge by Persuading Confession with Random Non-Labeled Datacited by 69
- 2020MurTree: Optimal Classification Trees via Dynamic Programming and Searchcited by 61
- 2022Towards Data-Free Model Stealing in a Hard Label Settingcited by 57
- 2017Interpretability via Model Extractioncited by 40
- 2021MEGEX: Data-Free Model Extraction Attack against Gradient-Based Explainable AIcited by 35
- 2020ES Attack: Model Stealing against Deep Neural Networks without Data Hurdlescited by 24
- 2019A framework for the extraction of Deep Neural Networks by leveraging public datacited by 22
- 2022Fast Sparse Classification for Generalized Linear and Additive Modelscited by 19
- 2018Query-Efficient Black-Box Attack by Active Learningcited by 15
- 2022XRand: Differentially Private Defense against Explanation-Guided Attackscited by 11
- 2018Active Deep Learning Attacks under Strict Rate Limitations for Online API Callscited by 10
- 2019Generative Adversarial Networks for Black-Box API Attacks with Limited Training Datacited by 8
- 2019Stealing Knowledge from Protected Deep Neural Networks Using Composite Unlabeled Datacited by 8
- 2020Stealing Black-Box Functionality Using The Deep Neural Tree Architecturecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.