Exploring the Relationship Between Feature Attribution Methods and Model Performance

Read original: arXiv:2405.13957 - Published 5/24/2024 by Priscylla Silva, Claudio T. Silva, Luis Gustavo Nonato

✨

Overview

Machine learning and deep learning models play a crucial role in predicting student success in educational contexts
Despite their widespread use, there is a significant gap in understanding the factors that influence these models' predictions, particularly when it comes to explainability in education
This research aims to address this gap by employing nine different explanation methods and analyzing the correlation between the agreement among these methods and the predictive model's performance

Plain English Explanation

Machine learning and deep learning models have become increasingly important in education, as they can help predict how well students will perform. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty about what factors these models are using to make their predictions, especially when it comes to explaining their decisions in an easy-to-understand way.

This research study tried to address this problem by using nine different methods to explain how the models were making their predictions. The researchers then looked at how much these different explanation methods agreed with each other, and how that related to the overall performance of the predictive models.

Their findings show that there is a very strong connection between the models' performance and the level of agreement among the different explanation methods. In other words, the better the models performed, the more the various explanation approaches tended to agree on what factors were driving the predictions.

This is an important discovery because it suggests that by looking at the agreement between different explanation methods, we can get a better sense of how reliable and trustworthy the model's predictions are. This could be especially useful in educational settings, where it's crucial to understand the reasons behind a model's predictions about student success.

Technical Explanation

The researchers in this paper employed nine distinct explanation methods to explore the factors influencing the predictions of machine learning and deep learning models used for predicting student success. These explanation methods included techniques like LIME, SHAP, and Integrated Gradients, which aim to identify the most important features or inputs contributing to a model's output.

By applying these nine explanation approaches, the researchers were able to analyze the level of agreement among the different methods in terms of the explanations they provided. They then looked at how this agreement correlated with the overall predictive performance of the models.

Using Spearman's correlation, the researchers found a very strong correlation between the model's performance and the agreement level observed among the explanation methods. This suggests that the better a model performs, the more the various explanation techniques tend to converge on the same key factors driving the predictions.

This is an important finding because it indicates that by examining the stability and consistency of explanations across different methods, we can gain valuable insights into the reliability and trustworthiness of the model's predictions, particularly in the context of educational applications where explainability is crucial.

Critical Analysis

While this research provides valuable insights into the relationship between model performance and explanation agreement, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further exploration:

The study focused on a specific educational context, so it would be important to see if the findings hold true in other domains as well. Expanding the research to different applications could strengthen the generalizability of the results.
The researchers used nine different explanation methods, but there may be other approaches or frameworks that could provide additional perspectives. Exploring commonalities and differences across a wider range of explanation techniques could yield further insights.
While the Spearman correlation analysis revealed a strong relationship between model performance and explanation agreement, it would be valuable to dive deeper into the underlying mechanisms and causal factors driving this connection. [A more nuanced, t-explainer framework could shed light on the specific ways in which model quality and explanation consistency are linked.

Overall, this research represents an important step forward in understanding the complex interplay between model performance and the explainability of their predictions, particularly in the context of educational applications. Continued exploration and refinement of these concepts could lead to more trustworthy and transparent AI systems in the future.

Conclusion

This research paper makes a significant contribution to the field of AI explainability, especially in the context of educational applications. By employing a comprehensive set of nine explanation methods and analyzing the relationship between explanation agreement and model performance, the researchers have uncovered a strong correlation that has important implications.

The findings suggest that by examining the consistency and stability of explanations across different methods, we can gain valuable insights into the reliability and trustworthiness of the model's predictions. This is particularly crucial in educational settings, where understanding the reasons behind a model's predictions about student success is essential for making informed decisions and ensuring fairness.

The potential to leverage these insights to build more transparent and accountable AI systems in education is an exciting prospect. As the use of machine learning and deep learning models continues to grow in this field, this research provides a valuable framework for enhancing the explainability and trustworthiness of these powerful tools.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

✨

Exploring the Relationship Between Feature Attribution Methods and Model Performance

Priscylla Silva, Claudio T. Silva, Luis Gustavo Nonato

Machine learning and deep learning models are pivotal in educational contexts, particularly in predicting student success. Despite their widespread application, a significant gap persists in comprehending the factors influencing these models' predictions, especially in explainability within education. This work addresses this gap by employing nine distinct explanation methods and conducting a comprehensive analysis to explore the correlation between the agreement among these methods in generating explanations and the predictive model's performance. Applying Spearman's correlation, our findings reveal a very strong correlation between the model's performance and the agreement level observed among the explanation methods.

5/24/2024

Selective Explanations

Lucas Monteiro Paes, Dennis Wei, Flavio P. Calmon

Feature attribution methods explain black-box machine learning (ML) models by assigning importance scores to input features. These methods can be computationally expensive for large ML models. To address this challenge, there has been increasing efforts to develop amortized explainers, where a machine learning model is trained to predict feature attribution scores with only one inference. Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce inaccurate predictions and misleading explanations. In this paper, we propose selective explanations, a novel feature attribution method that (i) detects when amortized explainers generate low-quality explanations and (ii) improves these explanations using a technique called explanations with initial guess. Our selective explanation method allows practitioners to specify the fraction of samples that receive explanations with initial guess, offering a principled way to bridge the gap between amortized explainers and their high-quality counterparts.

5/31/2024

A Critical Assessment of Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning for Intrusion Detection

Omer Subasi, Johnathan Cree, Joseph Manzano, Elena Peterson

There has been a large number of studies in interpretable and explainable ML for cybersecurity, in particular, for intrusion detection. Many of these studies have significant amount of overlapping and repeated evaluations and analysis. At the same time, these studies overlook crucial model, data, learning process, and utility related issues and many times completely disregard them. These issues include the use of overly complex and opaque ML models, unaccounted data imbalances and correlated features, inconsistent influential features across different explanation methods, the inconsistencies stemming from the constituents of a learning process, and the implausible utility of explanations. In this work, we empirically demonstrate these issues, analyze them and propose practical solutions in the context of feature-based model explanations. Specifically, we advise avoiding complex opaque models such as Deep Neural Networks and instead using interpretable ML models such as Decision Trees as the available intrusion datasets are not difficult for such interpretable models to classify successfully. Then, we bring attention to the binary classification metrics such as Matthews Correlation Coefficient (which are well-suited for imbalanced datasets. Moreover, we find that feature-based model explanations are most often inconsistent across different settings. In this respect, to further gauge the extent of inconsistencies, we introduce the notion of cross explanations which corroborates that the features that are determined to be impactful by one explanation method most often differ from those by another method. Furthermore, we show that strongly correlated data features and the constituents of a learning process, such as hyper-parameters and the optimization routine, become yet another source of inconsistent explanations. Finally, we discuss the utility of feature-based explanations.

7/8/2024

A Unified Framework for Input Feature Attribution Analysis

Jingyi Sun, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Explaining the decision-making process of machine learning models is crucial for ensuring their reliability and fairness. One popular explanation form highlights key input features, such as i) tokens (e.g., Shapley Values and Integrated Gradients), ii) interactions between tokens (e.g., Bivariate Shapley and Attention-based methods), or iii) interactions between spans of the input (e.g., Louvain Span Interactions). However, these explanation types have only been studied in isolation, making it difficult to judge their respective applicability. To bridge this gap, we propose a unified framework that facilitates a direct comparison between highlight and interactive explanations comprised of four diagnostic properties. Through extensive analysis across these three types of input feature explanations--each utilizing three different explanation techniques--across two datasets and two models, we reveal that each explanation type excels in terms of different diagnostic properties. In our experiments, highlight explanations are the most faithful to a model's prediction, and interactive explanations provide better utility for learning to simulate a model's predictions. These insights further highlight the need for future research to develop combined methods that enhance all diagnostic properties.

6/24/2024