Essential Work Sample Exercises for Evaluating AI Model Interpretability Skills

In today's AI-driven landscape, the ability to interpret and explain complex machine learning models has become a critical skill. As AI systems increasingly impact high-stakes decisions in healthcare, finance, and beyond, organizations face growing pressure from regulators, customers, and internal stakeholders to demystify these "black box" systems. Professionals skilled in AI model interpretability techniques are invaluable assets, capable of bridging the gap between powerful but opaque algorithms and the human need for transparency and trust.

Evaluating a candidate's proficiency in model interpretability requires more than theoretical knowledge assessment. While understanding concepts like SHAP values, feature importance, and counterfactual explanations is necessary, the real test lies in a candidate's ability to apply these techniques to real-world problems, communicate findings effectively, and design interpretability frameworks that align with business needs and ethical considerations.

The work samples outlined below are designed to evaluate candidates across multiple dimensions of AI interpretability expertise. They assess technical implementation skills, communication abilities, strategic planning, and ethical awareness—all essential components of effective model interpretability work. By observing candidates tackle these realistic challenges, hiring managers can gain valuable insights into how they approach complex interpretability problems and translate technical insights into business value.

Implementing these exercises as part of your hiring process will help identify candidates who not only understand interpretability techniques in theory but can apply them effectively in practice. This distinction is crucial, as the field requires both technical depth and the judgment to select and adapt approaches based on specific model types, stakeholder needs, and regulatory requirements.

Activity #1: Implementing SHAP Analysis for Model Explanation

This activity evaluates a candidate's ability to implement and interpret SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values, one of the most widely used model-agnostic interpretability techniques. The exercise tests technical implementation skills, understanding of feature contributions, and the ability to derive actionable insights from interpretability results.

Directions for the Company:

• Provide the candidate with a pre-trained machine learning model (preferably a gradient boosting or neural network model) and a dataset with clear documentation.
• The model should be solving a realistic problem, such as customer churn prediction, loan approval, or disease diagnosis.
• Include a Jupyter notebook template with the necessary imports and data loading code already set up.
• Allow 60-90 minutes for this exercise, which can be conducted remotely or on-site.
• Provide access to necessary libraries (SHAP, matplotlib, pandas, etc.) and computing resources.

Directions for the Candidate:

• Implement SHAP analysis on the provided model to explain its predictions.
• Generate both global interpretability insights (overall feature importance) and local explanations for specific instances.
• Create at least three different visualization types to communicate your findings (e.g., summary plot, dependence plot, force plot).
• Write a brief analysis (250-300 words) explaining:
• Which features drive the model's predictions and why
• Any surprising or counter-intuitive relationships discovered
• How these insights could be used to improve the model or business process
• Be prepared to discuss computational efficiency considerations for applying SHAP to large-scale models.

Feedback Mechanism:

• After reviewing the candidate's implementation, provide specific feedback on one technical aspect they executed well (e.g., effective visualization choices, computational optimizations).
• Offer one suggestion for improvement, such as alternative visualization approaches or additional analyses that would enhance understanding.
• Give the candidate 15 minutes to implement the suggested improvement or explain how they would approach it if time constraints don't allow for implementation.

Activity #2: Explaining Model Decisions to Non-Technical Stakeholders

This activity assesses a candidate's ability to translate complex interpretability results into clear, actionable insights for business stakeholders. Effective communication of model behavior is essential for building trust and enabling informed decision-making based on AI systems.

Directions for the Company:

• Prepare a scenario involving a complex model (e.g., a credit scoring model, medical diagnosis system, or fraud detection algorithm) with interpretability analysis already performed.
• Provide the candidate with:
• A summary of the model's purpose and business context
• Technical interpretability outputs (SHAP values, feature importance charts, partial dependence plots)
• Information about the stakeholder audience (e.g., medical professionals, financial analysts, or executives)
• Assign 45-60 minutes for preparation and 15 minutes for presentation.
• Have 2-3 team members role-play as the non-technical stakeholders during the presentation.

Directions for the Candidate:

• Review the provided interpretability analysis and prepare a 10-minute presentation explaining:
• How the model makes decisions (in non-technical terms)
• Which factors most influence the model's predictions
• The limitations of the model and when its predictions might be less reliable
• Recommendations for how stakeholders should use the model's outputs
• Create 3-5 slides with visualizations that effectively communicate model behavior to non-technical audiences.
• Be prepared to answer questions about model confidence, potential biases, and how specific predictions are generated.
• Focus on translating technical concepts into business language and practical implications.

Feedback Mechanism:

• After the presentation, provide feedback on one aspect of the communication that was particularly effective (e.g., clear analogies, effective visualizations).
• Suggest one area for improvement in how the candidate explained the model's behavior.
• Ask the candidate to re-explain one concept incorporating the feedback, giving them 5 minutes to adjust their approach.

Activity #3: Designing an Interpretability Framework for a Complex AI System

This planning exercise evaluates a candidate's strategic thinking about interpretability in the context of a complex, multi-model AI system. It tests their ability to design comprehensive interpretability approaches that address various stakeholder needs while considering technical constraints.

Directions for the Company:

• Create a detailed case study of a complex AI system with multiple components, such as:
• A recommendation engine with multiple underlying models
• A healthcare diagnostic system using various data types
• A financial risk assessment platform with several interconnected models
• Provide information about:
• The system architecture and model types used
• Key stakeholders (regulators, end-users, domain experts)
• Specific interpretability challenges (e.g., real-time explanation needs, regulatory requirements)
• Allow 90-120 minutes for this exercise.
• Provide whiteboarding tools or large paper sheets for diagramming.

Directions for the Candidate:

• Design a comprehensive interpretability framework for the described AI system that addresses:
• Which interpretability techniques to apply to each component of the system
• How to integrate explanations across multiple models
• Approaches for different types of stakeholders (technical vs. non-technical)
• Implementation priorities and potential tradeoffs
• Create a high-level project plan outlining:
• Key phases of implementing the interpretability framework
• Required resources and potential technical challenges
• Success metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of explanations
• Prepare a 15-minute presentation of your framework and implementation plan.
• Be ready to justify your technical choices and discuss alternatives.

Feedback Mechanism:

• Provide feedback on one particularly strong aspect of the candidate's framework design (e.g., comprehensive stakeholder consideration, technical feasibility).
• Suggest one area where the framework could be enhanced or a consideration that was overlooked.
• Give the candidate 10 minutes to revise their approach based on the feedback and explain how they would incorporate the suggestion.

Activity #4: Detecting and Mitigating Bias Through Interpretability

This activity assesses a candidate's ability to use interpretability techniques to identify and address potential biases in AI models. It evaluates both technical skills in bias detection and ethical judgment in proposing appropriate mitigation strategies.

Directions for the Company:

• Provide a pre-trained model with subtle but significant biases related to sensitive attributes (e.g., gender, age, race).
• The model should be solving a realistic problem where fairness is important, such as hiring, lending, or resource allocation.
• Include:
• The model and relevant dataset
• Documentation on the model's intended use case
• Basic performance metrics (overall accuracy, etc.)
• A Jupyter notebook template with necessary imports
• Allow 60-90 minutes for this exercise.

Directions for the Candidate:

• Apply appropriate interpretability techniques to analyze the model for potential biases.
• Specifically:
• Examine how the model behaves across different demographic groups
• Identify features that may serve as proxies for protected attributes
• Quantify any disparities in model performance or predictions
• Document your findings, including:
• Evidence of any biases discovered
• The potential impact of these biases on different stakeholders
• At least two potential approaches to mitigate the identified biases
• Implement one bias mitigation technique and evaluate its effectiveness.
• Prepare a brief report (500 words maximum) summarizing your analysis, findings, and recommendations.

Feedback Mechanism:

• Provide feedback on one strength in the candidate's bias analysis approach (e.g., thoroughness of investigation, creative use of interpretability techniques).
• Suggest one area where their analysis or mitigation strategy could be improved.
• Ask the candidate to spend 10 minutes refining their mitigation approach based on the feedback and explaining how the revised approach addresses the concerns raised.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should we allocate for these interpretability work samples?

Each exercise is designed to take between 60-120 minutes, depending on complexity. For remote assessments, consider providing the exercises as take-home assignments with a 24-hour window. For on-site interviews, you might select 1-2 exercises that best align with your specific needs. The planning exercise (#3) works well as a take-home assignment, while the communication exercise (#2) is most effective in person.

Should we provide real company data for these exercises?

While using real data creates an authentic experience, it often raises confidentiality concerns. Instead, consider using publicly available datasets that resemble your use cases, or create synthetic datasets that capture the key characteristics and challenges of your domain. If you do use modified company data, ensure it's properly anonymized and doesn't contain sensitive information.

How technical should the interviewer be to evaluate these exercises?

The technical implementation exercises (#1 and #4) require evaluators with hands-on experience in model interpretability techniques. However, the communication exercise (#2) can be evaluated by both technical and non-technical team members, which provides valuable insight into the candidate's ability to bridge knowledge gaps. For the planning exercise (#3), having at least one senior technical evaluator is recommended.

Can these exercises be adapted for different levels of seniority?

Yes, these exercises can be scaled according to seniority. For junior candidates, provide more structure and focus on implementation skills in exercises #1 and #4. For senior candidates, emphasize the strategic elements in exercise #3 and add complexity to the technical implementations, such as requiring consideration of computational efficiency or integration with existing systems.

How should we weigh technical correctness versus communication skills?

The balance depends on your team's specific needs. For roles focused on research or developing new interpretability techniques, technical depth in exercises #1 and #4 might carry more weight. For roles involving stakeholder interaction or leading interpretability initiatives, communication skills demonstrated in exercise #2 and strategic thinking in exercise #3 become more critical. Ideally, strong candidates should demonstrate competence across all dimensions.

What if a candidate uses interpretability techniques we don't currently use?

This can actually be valuable! If a candidate introduces well-justified techniques that your team hasn't explored, it demonstrates their breadth of knowledge and potential to bring new approaches to your organization. Evaluate their reasoning for choosing these techniques rather than focusing solely on familiarity. However, ensure they can explain why their chosen approach is appropriate for the specific problem.

AI model interpretability is rapidly evolving from a technical specialty to a core business necessity. By incorporating these work samples into your hiring process, you'll identify candidates who can not only implement interpretability techniques but also translate their insights into business value and ethical AI practices. The most valuable team members in this space combine technical expertise with communication skills and strategic thinking—precisely the combination these exercises are designed to evaluate.

For more resources to enhance your AI hiring process, explore Yardstick's comprehensive tools for creating AI-optimized job descriptions, generating targeted interview questions, and developing complete interview guides.

Build a complete interview guide for evaluating AI model interpretability skills by signing up for a free Yardstick account at https://yardstick.team/sign-up