interpret model outputs

Legal compliance of machine learning models cannot be directly encoded; instead, abstract legal obligations must be “indirectly operationalized” into verifiable model design choices. Existing approaches either focus narrowly on software-level compliance or overlook legal complexity, failing to address two core challenges: the multiplicity of legal interpretations and the unpredictability of performance–compliance trade-offs. Method: We propose a five-stage interdisciplinary framework introducing the first legal–ML co-modeling paradigm, embedding legal reasoning throughout the ML development lifecycle. It features a legally adaptable operationalization mechanism and a multi-objective trade-off evaluation system. Contribution/Results: Evaluated in an anti-money laundering use case, the framework identifies an optimal configuration achieving both high detection accuracy (12% F1-score improvement) and legal defensibility, demonstrating its systematic capacity to jointly optimize predictive performance and legal legitimacy.

Current machine learning evaluation practices predominantly rely on surface-level performance metrics, often neglecting the internal mechanisms of models. This work proposes trustworthy interpretability as a central evaluation paradigm and, for the first time, systematically demonstrates that it satisfies core criteria from the philosophy of science—namely falsifiability, reproducibility, and predictive power. By constructing an evaluation framework that integrates causal analysis with mechanistic probing, the study delineates three functional pathways through which interpretability enables the identification of behavioral origins, detection of latent flaws, and prediction of potential failure modes. This approach advances model assessment beyond performance-oriented benchmarks toward a deeper understanding of underlying mechanisms.

This study addresses the limitations of existing SysML verification approaches, which are often tool-dependent and restricted to performance properties, lacking support for automated validation of behavioral and interface requirements. To overcome these shortcomings, this work proposes a tool-agnostic, automated verification workflow driven by SysML test cases, integrating UML Testing Profile and behavioral diagram constructs to enable unified validation of multidimensional attributes—including behavior, timing, and state responses. The methodology was developed through a mixed-methods research strategy combining literature review and stakeholder interviews, and its efficacy was empirically validated across two independent SysML toolchains. The approach not only transcends the constraints of conventional parametric methods but also enables automatic traceability of verification results back to the original model elements.

Communication barriers between data scientists and domain experts arise from oversimplified, accuracy-centric model performance reporting, hindering shared understanding of model limitations and contextual applicability. Method: We propose a visualization-mediated model explanation framework grounded in human-computer interaction principles, participatory design, and visual narrative techniques. This yields the first domain-expert-oriented model communication guideline—emphasizing risk, trade-offs, and situational appropriateness rather than isolated metrics like accuracy. An iterative empirical study was conducted using regression models, incorporating structured expert feedback for evaluation. Contribution/Results: The framework significantly improves domain experts’ ability to identify model limitations, recognize inherent trade-offs, and proactively make context-driven adoption decisions. Its core innovation lies in repositioning visualization as an interdisciplinary consensus-building medium—shifting the paradigm from “metric reporting” to “collaborative understanding.”

This study addresses the longstanding challenge of treating machine learning interpretability as a non-functional requirement lacking quantifiable metrics and validation mechanisms. To bridge this gap, the work proposes an innovative approach that reframes interpretability as a verifiable functional requirement through the integration of data and model provenance. By synergizing principles from requirements engineering and machine learning engineering, the authors develop a systematic and operational verification framework. This framework enables, for the first time, the explicit specification and empirical validation of interpretability requirements, thereby substantially enhancing the engineering rigor and trustworthiness of machine learning system development.

This work addresses the limitations of existing explainable AI methods, which predominantly focus on associative predictions and fall short in supporting decision-making that requires causal reasoning and counterfactual analysis. To bridge this gap, the paper proposes a novel framework that integrates causal machine learning with intrinsically interpretable models—such as additive models and symbolic regression—by explicitly embedding causal inference mechanisms within the model architecture. This approach enables the explicit recovery of causal structures and functional forms among variables directly from cross-sectional data. While maintaining high predictive accuracy, the method achieves comprehensive transparency in system structure, causal relationships, and response mechanisms, thereby substantially enhancing both interpretability and causal reliability for trustworthy “What-if” analyses.

Existing model explanation methods often suffer from attribution bias or even erroneous interpretations due to inadequate consideration of baseline selection. This work reformulates the model explanation task by unifying gradient-based methods, Integrated Gradients (IG), and Taylor expansion approaches, thereby systematically revealing— for the first time—the pivotal role of the baseline in attribution. Building on this insight, the authors propose an evaluation framework grounded in attribution error and develop a general-purpose explanation method with a well-defined, principled baseline that supports feature attribution at arbitrary network layers. The refined IG variant significantly improves explanation accuracy across multiple benchmarks, and attributions derived from different layers coherently reflect the hierarchical nature of feature extraction in deep networks.