With a growing interest in interpretability, there is an increasing need to characterize what exactly we mean by it and how to sensibly compare the interpretability of different approaches. In this talk, I suggest that our current desire for "interpretability" is as vague as asking for "good predictions" -- a desire that. while entirely reasonable, must be formalized into concrete needs such as high average test performance (perhaps held-out likelihood is a good metric) or some kind of robust performance (perhaps sensitivity or specificity are more appropriate metrics). This objective of this talk is to start a conversation to do the same for interpretability: I will describe distinct, concrete objectives that all fall under the umbrella term of interpretability and how each objective suggests natural evaluation procedures. I will also describe highlight important open questions in the evaluation of interpretable models.

Joint work with Been Kim, and the product of discussions with countless collaborators and colleagues.