In some situations, the interpretability of the machine learning models plays a role as important as the model accuracy. Interpretability comes from the need to trust the prediction model, verify some of its properties, or even enforce them to improve fairness. Many model-agnostic explanatory methods exists to provide explanations for black-box models. In the regression task, the practitioner can use white-boxes or gray-boxes models to achieve more interpretable results, which is the case of symbolic regression. When using an explanatory method, and since interpretability lacks a rigorous definition, there is a need to evaluate and compare the quality and different explainers. This paper proposes a benchmark scheme to evaluate explanatory methods to explain regression models, mainly symbolic regression models. Experiments were performed using 100 physics equations with different interpretable and non-interpretable regression methods and popular explanation methods, evaluating the performance of the explainers performance with several explanation measures. In addition, we further analyzed four benchmarks from the GP community. The results have shown that Symbolic Regression models can be an interesting alternative to white-box and black-box models that is capable of returning accurate models with appropriate explanations. Regarding the explainers, we observed that Partial Effects and SHAP were the most robust explanation models, with Integrated Gradients being unstable only with tree-based models. This benchmark is publicly available for further experiments.

建议评估解释性方法以解释回归模型，特别是符号回归模型。在实验中，我们使用各种可解释和不可解释的回归方法以及流行的解释方法评估了解释器的性能，并发现符号回归模型是一种能够提供准确模型和合适解释的有趣选择。最稳定的解释模型是Partial Effects和SHAP，而Integrated Gradients在基于树的模型中不稳定。此基准可供进一步实验使用。

符号回归中的可解释性：使用费曼数据集的解释方法基准