pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

The mythos of model interpretability

7 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

7 Pith papers citing it
abstract

Supervised machine learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? We want models to be not only good, but interpretable. And yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. Papers provide diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability, and offer myriad notions of what attributes render models interpretable. Despite this ambiguity, many papers proclaim interpretability axiomatically, absent further explanation. In this paper, we seek to refine the discourse on interpretability. First, we examine the motivations underlying interest in interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, we address model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post-hoc explanations as competing notions. Throughout, we discuss the feasibility and desirability of different notions, and question the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

years

2026 6 2025 1

verdicts

UNVERDICTED 7

roles

background 1

polarities

background 1

representative citing papers

What Physics do Data-Driven MoCap-to-Radar Models Learn?

cs.LG · 2026-04-19 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Data-driven MoCap-to-radar models often fail to learn underlying physics despite low reconstruction error, with temporal attention proving critical for transformers to achieve physical consistency.

citing papers explorer

Showing 7 of 7 citing papers.