Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05508 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866913097209348096 |
|---|---|
| author | Lee, Isabelle Liu, Emmy Jiao, Cathy Joshi, Brihi Yogatama, Dani Barez, Fazl Saxon, Michael |
| author_facet | Lee, Isabelle Liu, Emmy Jiao, Cathy Joshi, Brihi Yogatama, Dani Barez, Fazl Saxon, Michael |
| contents | Current machine learning models are evaluated through behavioral snapshots, with benchmark accuracies, win rates and outcome-based metrics. Model explanations and evaluations, however, are fundamentally intertwined: understanding why a model produces a behavior can be as important as measuring what it produces. If we trusted interpretability, we argue that it can serve not merely as diagnostics but as a richer and more principled form of model evaluation beyond surface-level performance metrics. We explore three ways interpretability can function evaluatively: (1) fixing problems by identifying the root causes of unwanted behavior, (2) detecting subtly faulty mechanisms that invalidate model outputs, and (3) predicting potential issues before they arise by fully understanding the model's weaknesses. To fulfill its evaluative potential, we argue that interpretability methods must generate claims that are falsifiable, reproducible, and predictive -- that is, interpretability must meet scientific standards. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_05508 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Rigorous Interpretation Is a Form of Evaluation Lee, Isabelle Liu, Emmy Jiao, Cathy Joshi, Brihi Yogatama, Dani Barez, Fazl Saxon, Michael Computers and Society Current machine learning models are evaluated through behavioral snapshots, with benchmark accuracies, win rates and outcome-based metrics. Model explanations and evaluations, however, are fundamentally intertwined: understanding why a model produces a behavior can be as important as measuring what it produces. If we trusted interpretability, we argue that it can serve not merely as diagnostics but as a richer and more principled form of model evaluation beyond surface-level performance metrics. We explore three ways interpretability can function evaluatively: (1) fixing problems by identifying the root causes of unwanted behavior, (2) detecting subtly faulty mechanisms that invalidate model outputs, and (3) predicting potential issues before they arise by fully understanding the model's weaknesses. To fulfill its evaluative potential, we argue that interpretability methods must generate claims that are falsifiable, reproducible, and predictive -- that is, interpretability must meet scientific standards. |
| title | Rigorous Interpretation Is a Form of Evaluation |
| topic | Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05508 |