Along with the great success of deep neural networks, there is also growing concern about their black-box nature. The interpretability issue affects people's trust on deep learning systems. It is also related to many ethical problems, e.g., algorithmic discrimination. Moreover, interpretability is a desired property for deep networks to become powerful tools in other research fields, e.g., drug discovery and genomics. In this survey, we conduct a comprehensive review of the neural network interpretability research. We first clarify the definition of interpretability as it has been used in many different contexts. Then we elaborate on the importance of interpretability and propose a novel taxonomy organized along three dimensions: type of engagement (passive vs. active interpretation approaches), the type of explanation, and the focus (from local to global interpretability). This taxonomy provides a meaningful 3D view of distribution of papers from the relevant literature as two of the dimensions are not simply categorical but allow ordinal subcategories. Finally, we summarize the existing interpretability evaluation methods and suggest possible research directions inspired by our new taxonomy.

Traditional solvers for tackling combinatorial optimization (CO) problems are usually designed by human experts. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in utilizing deep learning, especially deep reinforcement learning, to automatically learn effective solvers for CO. The resultant new paradigm is termed neural combinatorial optimization (NCO). However, the advantages and disadvantages of NCO relative to other approaches have not been empirically or theoretically well studied. This work presents a comprehensive comparative study of NCO solvers and alternative solvers. Specifically, taking the traveling salesman problem as the testbed problem, the performance of the solvers is assessed in five aspects, i.e., effectiveness, efficiency, stability, scalability, and generalization ability. Our results show that the solvers learned by NCO approaches, in general, still fall short of traditional solvers in nearly all these aspects. A potential benefit of NCO solvers would be their superior time and energy efficiency for small-size problem instances when sufficient training instances are available. Hopefully, this work would help with a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of NCO and provide a comprehensive evaluation protocol for further benchmarking NCO approaches in comparison to other approaches.