Isabelle Lee

Hadas Orgad, Fazl Barez, Tal Haklay et al.

Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks. Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact, raising questions about its relevance and utility. This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability--the extent to which insights enable concrete decisions and interventions beyond interpretability research itself. We define actionable interpretability along two dimensions--concreteness and validation--and analyze the barriers currently preventing real-world impact. To address these barriers, we identify five domains where interpretability offers unique leverage and present a framework for actionable interpretability with evaluation criteria aligned with practical outcomes. Our goal is not to downplay exploratory research, but to establish actionability as a core objective of interpretability research.

Isabelle Lee, Emmy Liu, Cathy Jiao et al.

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.

Hannah Murray, Brian Hyeongseok Kim, Isabelle Lee et al. · amazon-science, uw

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming ubiquitous, promising automation even in high-stakes scenarios. However, existing evaluation methods often fall short -- benchmarks saturate, accuracy-based metrics are overly simplistic, and many inherently ambiguous problems lack a clear ground truth. Given these limitations, evaluating fairness becomes complex. To address this, we reframe fairness evaluation using Borda scores, a method from voting theory, as a nuanced yet interpretable metric for measuring fairness. Using organ allocation as a case study, we introduce two tasks: (1) Choose-One and (2) Rank-All. In Choose-One, LLMs select a single candidate for a kidney, and we assess fairness across demographics using proportional parity. In Rank-All, LLMs rank all candidates for a kidney, reflecting real-world allocation processes. Since traditional fairness metrics do not account for ranking, we propose a novel application of Borda scoring to capture biases. Our findings highlight the potential of voting-based metrics to provide a richer, more multifaceted evaluation of LLM fairness.