Use when explaining and interpreting ML model predictions.
Scanned 9/10/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add LoopyLuci/Skills --skill interpretable-ml --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Interpretable Ml?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/loopyluci-interpretable-ml)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: interpretable-ml
description: "Use when explaining and interpreting ML model predictions."
category: mlops
tags: [interpretability, explainability, shap, lime, xai]
---
# Interpretable ML
Explaining and interpreting machine learning model predictions.
## When to Use Each Method
| Method | Scope | Speed | Model-Agnostic | Best For |
|--------|-------|-------|---------------|----------|
| SHAP | Local + Global | Slow | Yes | Any model, feature importance |
| LIME | Local | Medium | Yes | Single prediction explanation |
| Integrated Gradients | Local | Fast | No | Deep learning |
| Attention Weights | Local | Fast | No | Transformers |
| Partial Dependence | Global | Medium | Yes | Feature effect |
| Permutation Importance | Global | Fast | Yes | Feature ranking |
## SHAP
```python
import shap
# Tree explainer (fast for XGBoost, LightGBM, RF)
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer.shap_values(X)
# Summary plot
shap.summary_plot(shap_values, X)
# Force plot for single prediction
shap.force_plot(explainer.expected_value, shap_values[0], X.iloc[0])
# Deep explainer (for neural networks)
explainer = shap.DeepExplainer(model, background_data)
shap_values = explainer.shap_values(X_test[:100])
```
## LIME
```python
from lime import lime_tabular
import numpy as np
explainer = lime_tabular.LimeTabularExplainer(
X_train.values,
feature_names=feature_names,
class_names=['negative', 'positive'],
mode='classification',
)
exp = explainer.explain_instance(
X_test.iloc[0].values,
model.predict_proba,
num_features=10,
)
exp.show_in_notebook()
exp.as_list() # [(feature, weight), ...]
```
## Integrated Gradients
```python
def integrated_gradients(model, input_tensor, baseline=None, steps=50):
if baseline is None:
baseline = torch.zeros_like(input_tensor)
scaled_inputs = [baseline + (i/steps) * (input_tensor - baseline)
for i in range(steps + 1)]
scaled_inputs = torch.stack(scaled_inputs)
scaled_inputs.requires_grad_(True)
outputs = model(scaled_inputs)
pred = outputs[:, outputs.argmax(dim=-1)]
grad = torch.autograd.grad(pred.sum(), scaled_inputs)[0]
avg_grad = (grad[:-1] + grad[1:]).mean(dim=0) / 2
ig = (input_tensor - baseline) * avg_grad
return ig.sum(dim=-1) # feature attributions per token
```
## Attention Visualization
```python
# For transformer models
def visualize_attention(tokens, attention_weights, layer=-1, head=0):
# attention_weights: (layers, heads, seq_len, seq_len)
attn = attention_weights[layer, head].detach().numpy()
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 8))
ax.imshow(attn, cmap='Blues')
ax.set_xticks(range(len(tokens)))
ax.set_yticks(range(len(tokens)))
ax.set_xticklabels(tokens, rotation=90)
ax.set_yticklabels(tokens)
```
## Pitfalls
- SHAP is computationally expensive for large models and datasets
- LIME results vary between runs due to sampling — set seed for reproducibility
- Attention ≠ explanation (different attention distributions can give same output)
- Feature importance measures correlation, not causation
- Local explanations don't generalize to global behavior
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!