An effect analysis of the balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations of student success prediction models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The provided paper analyzes the impact of different balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations of student success prediction models.
- Counterfactual explanations are used to understand the reasons behind model predictions and identify actionable ways to improve student outcomes.
- The researchers explore how balancing techniques, which address imbalanced dataset issues, affect the interpretability and actionability of these counterfactual explanations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how different approaches to addressing imbalanced data can impact the explanations provided by machine learning models used to predict student success. Counterfactual explanations are a way for these models to explain their predictions and suggest actionable steps students can take to improve their chances of success.
The researchers tested several balancing techniques, such as oversampling and undersampling, to see how they affect the counterfactual explanations generated by the models. The goal was to understand whether certain balancing methods produce more meaningful and practical explanations that students and educators can use to improve outcomes.
By analyzing the counterfactual explanations under different balancing conditions, the paper provides insights into how the choice of balancing technique can impact the interpretability and usefulness of the explanations provided by student success prediction models. This information can help researchers and practitioners select the most appropriate balancing approach when developing explainable AI systems for educational applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the impact of various balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations generated by student success prediction models. Counterfactual explanations are a type of explainable AI that provide insights into why a model made a particular prediction and suggest actionable steps to change the outcome.
The researchers used an educational dataset with an imbalanced distribution of successful and unsuccessful student outcomes. They applied several balancing techniques, including oversampling, undersampling, and a combination of the two, to address the class imbalance. Then, they trained student success prediction models on the balanced datasets and generated counterfactual explanations for the model predictions.
By analyzing the counterfactual explanations under different balancing conditions, the paper explores how the choice of balancing technique affects the interpretability and actionability of the explanations. The researchers assessed the explanations based on criteria such as the clarity of the suggested actions, the feasibility of implementing those actions, and the overall usefulness of the explanations for students and educators.
The findings reveal that the balancing technique used can have a significant impact on the counterfactual explanations. Some methods, like oversampling, may produce more interpretable and actionable explanations, while others, like undersampling, could lead to less helpful insights. The paper provides guidance on selecting the appropriate balancing approach to ensure the explanations generated by student success prediction models are meaningful and practical for improving student outcomes.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable analysis of the influence of balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations generated by student success prediction models. The researchers have carefully designed the study and considered multiple balancing methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue.
One potential limitation of the study is that it focuses on a single educational dataset, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. It would be beneficial to examine the impact of balancing techniques on counterfactual explanations across a wider range of educational datasets to validate the conclusions and identify any contextual factors that may influence the results.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential interactions between the choice of balancing technique and the specific model architecture or explainability method used. It would be interesting to investigate whether certain balancing approaches are better suited to particular model types or explanation algorithms, as this could further inform the selection of the most appropriate techniques for developing explainable student success prediction systems.
Finally, while the paper assesses the interpretability and actionability of the counterfactual explanations, it does not directly evaluate the impact of these explanations on student outcomes. Future research could explore whether the use of counterfactual explanations generated with specific balancing techniques leads to tangible improvements in student success rates, providing a more direct measure of the practical value of this approach.
Conclusion
The paper presents a thoughtful analysis of the interplay between balancing techniques and the counterfactual explanations produced by student success prediction models. The findings suggest that the choice of balancing method can significantly influence the interpretability and actionability of the explanations, which is crucial for the effective deployment of explainable AI systems in educational settings.
By providing guidance on selecting the appropriate balancing approach, the paper contributes to the development of more transparent and impactful student success prediction models. These models can then be used to generate meaningful counterfactual explanations that empower students and educators to identify and implement targeted interventions, ultimately improving educational outcomes.
The insights from this research can also inform the broader field of explainable AI, highlighting the importance of carefully considering data preprocessing techniques when designing interpretable and actionable machine learning systems. As the use of AI expands in various domains, this type of nuanced analysis will be crucial for ensuring the responsible and effective deployment of these technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
An effect analysis of the balancing techniques on the counterfactual explanations of student success prediction models
Mustafa Cavus, Jakub Kuzilek
In the past decade, we have experienced a massive boom in the usage of digital solutions in higher education. Due to this boom, large amounts of data have enabled advanced data analysis methods to support learners and examine learning processes. One of the dominant research directions in learning analytics is predictive modeling of learners' success using various machine learning methods. To build learners' and teachers' trust in such methods and systems, exploring the methods and methodologies that enable relevant stakeholders to deeply understand the underlying machine-learning models is necessary. In this context, counterfactual explanations from explainable machine learning tools are promising. Several counterfactual generation methods hold much promise, but the features must be actionable and causal to be effective. Thus, obtaining which counterfactual generation method suits the student success prediction models in terms of desiderata, stability, and robustness is essential. Although a few studies have been published in recent years on the use of counterfactual explanations in educational sciences, they have yet to discuss which counterfactual generation method is more suitable for this problem. This paper analyzed the effectiveness of commonly used counterfactual generation methods, such as WhatIf Counterfactual Explanations, Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanations, and Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanations after balancing. This contribution presents a case study using the Open University Learning Analytics dataset to demonstrate the practical usefulness of counterfactual explanations. The results illustrate the method's effectiveness and describe concrete steps that could be taken to alter the model's prediction.
Read more8/2/2024
0
Explainable bank failure prediction models: Counterfactual explanations to reduce the failure risk
Seyma Gunonu, Gizem Altun, Mustafa Cavus
The accuracy and understandability of bank failure prediction models are crucial. While interpretable models like logistic regression are favored for their explainability, complex models such as random forest, support vector machines, and deep learning offer higher predictive performance but lower explainability. These models, known as black boxes, make it difficult to derive actionable insights. To address this challenge, using counterfactual explanations is suggested. These explanations demonstrate how changes in input variables can alter the model output and suggest ways to mitigate bank failure risk. The key challenge lies in selecting the most effective method for generating useful counterfactuals, which should demonstrate validity, proximity, sparsity, and plausibility. The paper evaluates several counterfactual generation methods: WhatIf, Multi Objective, and Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanation, and also explores resampling methods like undersampling, oversampling, SMOTE, and the cost sensitive approach to address data imbalance in bank failure prediction in the US. The results indicate that the Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanation method yields higher quality counterfactual explanations, mainly using the cost sensitive approach. Overall, the Multi Objective Counterfactual and Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanation methods outperform others regarding validity, proximity, and sparsity metrics, with the cost sensitive approach providing the most desirable counterfactual explanations. These findings highlight the variability in the performance of counterfactual generation methods across different balancing strategies and machine learning models, offering valuable strategies to enhance the utility of black box bank failure prediction models.
Read more7/23/2024
0
A multi-criteria approach for selecting an explanation from the set of counterfactuals produced by an ensemble of explainers
Ignacy Stk{e}pka, Mateusz Lango, Jerzy Stefanowski
Counterfactuals are widely used to explain ML model predictions by providing alternative scenarios for obtaining the more desired predictions. They can be generated by a variety of methods that optimize different, sometimes conflicting, quality measures and produce quite different solutions. However, choosing the most appropriate explanation method and one of the generated counterfactuals is not an easy task. Instead of forcing the user to test many different explanation methods and analysing conflicting solutions, in this paper, we propose to use a multi-stage ensemble approach that will select single counterfactual based on the multiple-criteria analysis. It offers a compromise solution that scores well on several popular quality measures. This approach exploits the dominance relation and the ideal point decision aid method, which selects one counterfactual from the Pareto front. The conducted experiments demonstrated that the proposed approach generates fully actionable counterfactuals with attractive compromise values of the considered quality measures.
Read more8/6/2024
0
Using LLMs for Explaining Sets of Counterfactual Examples to Final Users
Arturo Fredes, Jordi Vitria
Causality is vital for understanding true cause-and-effect relationships between variables within predictive models, rather than relying on mere correlations, making it highly relevant in the field of Explainable AI. In an automated decision-making scenario, causal inference methods can analyze the underlying data-generation process, enabling explanations of a model's decision by manipulating features and creating counterfactual examples. These counterfactuals explore hypothetical scenarios where a minimal number of factors are altered, providing end-users with valuable information on how to change their situation. However, interpreting a set of multiple counterfactuals can be challenging for end-users who are not used to analyzing raw data records. In our work, we propose a novel multi-step pipeline that uses counterfactuals to generate natural language explanations of actions that will lead to a change in outcome in classifiers of tabular data using LLMs. This pipeline is designed to guide the LLM through smaller tasks that mimic human reasoning when explaining a decision based on counterfactual cases. We conducted various experiments using a public dataset and proposed a method of closed-loop evaluation to assess the coherence of the final explanation with the counterfactuals, as well as the quality of the content. Results are promising, although further experiments with other datasets and human evaluations should be carried out.
Read more8/28/2024