A Guide to Feature Importance Methods for Scientific Inference
2404.12862
0
0
Abstract
While machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used due to their high predictive power, their use in understanding the data-generating process (DGP) is limited. Understanding the DGP requires insights into feature-target associations, which many ML models cannot directly provide, due to their opaque internal mechanisms. Feature importance (FI) methods provide useful insights into the DGP under certain conditions. Since the results of different FI methods have different interpretations, selecting the correct FI method for a concrete use case is crucial and still requires expert knowledge. This paper serves as a comprehensive guide to help understand the different interpretations of FI methods. Through an extensive review of FI methods and providing new proofs regarding their interpretation, we facilitate a thorough understanding of these methods and formulate concrete recommendations for scientific inference. We conclude by discussing options for FI uncertainty estimation and point to directions for future research aiming at full statistical inference from black-box ML models.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper discusses various methods for determining feature importance in machine learning models, which is crucial for scientific inference and interpretability.
- The authors provide a comprehensive guide to different feature importance techniques, their pros and cons, and how they can be applied in real-world scenarios.
- The paper covers model-agnostic and model-specific approaches, highlighting key considerations for researchers and practitioners when choosing the right feature importance method for their needs.
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning models are often complex, making it difficult to understand how they arrive at their predictions. Feature importance methods aim to address this by identifying the most influential factors driving a model's output. This is particularly important in scientific research, where understanding the underlying drivers of a phenomenon is crucial.
The authors of this paper explore a range of feature importance techniques, both model-agnostic (applicable to any machine learning model) and model-specific (tailored to particular model architectures). They explain the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, helping researchers and practitioners navigate the landscape of interpretable machine learning.
For example, Confident Feature Ranking is a model-agnostic method that provides a statistical measure of feature importance, while Accurate Estimation of Feature Importance and Faithfulness in Tree Models focuses on improving feature importance estimates for decision tree-based models. The paper also covers more advanced techniques, such as Topological Interpretability for Deep Learning and Explainable AI Integrated with Feature Engineering for Wildfire Prediction.
By understanding the strengths and limitations of these methods, researchers can make more informed choices about which feature importance approach best fits their specific research goals and dataset characteristics.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by presenting a motivating example, where feature importance is used to investigate the factors that contribute to a person's likelihood of developing a certain medical condition. The authors then outline their key contributions, which include a comprehensive review of feature importance methods, a discussion of their practical considerations, and guidance on selecting the appropriate technique for a given research context.
The paper covers a wide range of feature importance approaches, both model-agnostic and model-specific. Model-agnostic methods, such as SHAP and permutation importance, can be applied to any machine learning model, while model-specific techniques, like Accurate Estimation of Feature Importance and Faithfulness in Tree Models, are tailored to the strengths and limitations of particular architectures.
The authors also discuss the practical considerations that researchers should keep in mind when choosing a feature importance method, such as the interpretability of the results, the computational complexity, and the robustness to different data characteristics.
Throughout the paper, the authors provide examples and case studies to illustrate the application of these feature importance techniques in real-world scientific research, covering a range of domains, including biology, medicine, and environmental science.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive and well-structured guide to feature importance methods, which is a crucial aspect of interpretable machine learning. The authors have done an excellent job of covering a wide range of techniques, both model-agnostic and model-specific, and highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses.
One potential limitation of the paper is that it does not delve deeply into the statistical and mathematical foundations of these feature importance methods. While the authors provide a high-level overview, a more detailed technical explanation of the underlying principles could be beneficial for researchers looking to gain a deeper understanding of the methods.
Additionally, the paper could have explored the potential biases and limitations of these feature importance techniques in more depth. For example, the authors could have discussed how the choice of feature importance method can impact the interpretability and reliability of the results, especially in the context of complex, high-dimensional datasets.
Despite these minor limitations, the paper is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners working in the field of interpretable machine learning. The authors have succeeded in providing a clear and accessible guide to feature importance methods, which will help bridge the gap between the technical details and the practical application of these techniques in real-world scientific research.
Conclusion
This paper offers a comprehensive guide to feature importance methods, which are essential for scientific inference and interpretability in machine learning. By exploring a range of model-agnostic and model-specific techniques, the authors provide researchers and practitioners with the knowledge and tools to select the most appropriate feature importance approach for their specific research needs.
The paper's emphasis on the practical considerations and real-world applications of these methods makes it a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding and leveraging the power of interpretable machine learning. As the field of AI continues to advance, the insights and guidance provided in this paper will become increasingly important for ensuring that machine learning models are transparent, trustworthy, and aligned with scientific objectives.
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
✨
Confident Feature Ranking
Bitya Neuhof, Yuval Benjamini
0
0
Machine learning models are widely applied in various fields. Stakeholders often use post-hoc feature importance methods to better understand the input features' contribution to the models' predictions. The interpretation of the importance values provided by these methods is frequently based on the relative order of the features (their ranking) rather than the importance values themselves. Since the order may be unstable, we present a framework for quantifying the uncertainty in global importance values. We propose a novel method for the post-hoc interpretation of feature importance values that is based on the framework and pairwise comparisons of the feature importance values. This method produces simultaneous confidence intervals for the features' ranks, which include the ``true'' (infinite sample) ranks with high probability, and enables the selection of the set of the top-k important features.
4/19/2024
✨
From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores
Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Nicholas Asher, Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
A central goal of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to assign relative importance to the features of a Machine Learning (ML) model given some prediction. The importance of this task of explainability by feature attribution is illustrated by the ubiquitous recent use of tools such as SHAP and LIME. Unfortunately, the exact computation of feature attributions, using the game-theoretical foundation underlying SHAP and LIME, can yield manifestly unsatisfactory results, that tantamount to reporting misleading relative feature importance. Recent work targeted rigorous feature attribution, by studying axiomatic aggregations of features based on logic-based definitions of explanations by feature selection. This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power, and that those recently proposed axiomatic aggregations represent a few instantiations of the range of power indices studied in the past. Furthermore, it remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs), i.e. the use of power indices in XAI, and which of these indices would be the best suited for the purposes of XAI by feature attribution, namely in terms of not producing results that could be deemed as unsatisfactory. This paper proposes novel desirable properties that FISs should exhibit. In addition, the paper also proposes novel FISs exhibiting the proposed properties. Finally, the paper conducts a rigorous analysis of the best-known power indices in terms of the proposed properties.
5/21/2024
🔍
Model-agnostic variable importance for predictive uncertainty: an entropy-based approach
Danny Wood, Theodore Papamarkou, Matt Benatan, Richard Allmendinger
0
0
In order to trust the predictions of a machine learning algorithm, it is necessary to understand the factors that contribute to those predictions. In the case of probabilistic and uncertainty-aware models, it is necessary to understand not only the reasons for the predictions themselves, but also the reasons for the model's level of confidence in those predictions. In this paper, we show how existing methods in explainability can be extended to uncertainty-aware models and how such extensions can be used to understand the sources of uncertainty in a model's predictive distribution. In particular, by adapting permutation feature importance, partial dependence plots, and individual conditional expectation plots, we demonstrate that novel insights into model behaviour may be obtained and that these methods can be used to measure the impact of features on both the entropy of the predictive distribution and the log-likelihood of the ground truth labels under that distribution. With experiments using both synthetic and real-world data, we demonstrate the utility of these approaches to understand both the sources of uncertainty and their impact on model performance.
5/30/2024
✨
Feature Importance Disparities for Data Bias Investigations
Peter W. Chang, Leor Fishman, Seth Neel
0
0
It is widely held that one cause of downstream bias in classifiers is bias present in the training data. Rectifying such biases may involve context-dependent interventions such as training separate models on subgroups, removing features with bias in the collection process, or even conducting real-world experiments to ascertain sources of bias. Despite the need for such data bias investigations, few automated methods exist to assist practitioners in these efforts. In this paper, we present one such method that given a dataset $X$ consisting of protected and unprotected features, outcomes $y$, and a regressor $h$ that predicts $y$ given $X$, outputs a tuple $(f_j, g)$, with the following property: $g$ corresponds to a subset of the training dataset $(X, y)$, such that the $j^{th}$ feature $f_j$ has much larger (or smaller) influence in the subgroup $g$, than on the dataset overall, which we call feature importance disparity (FID). We show across $4$ datasets and $4$ common feature importance methods of broad interest to the machine learning community that we can efficiently find subgroups with large FID values even over exponentially large subgroup classes and in practice these groups correspond to subgroups with potentially serious bias issues as measured by standard fairness metrics.
6/4/2024