Position Paper: Bridging the Gap Between Machine Learning and Sensitivity Analysis
0
➖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Machine learning (ML) model interpretations and the model-building process can be viewed as a form of sensitivity analysis (SA), a methodology used to explain complex systems in various fields.
- The paper aims to highlight the benefits of a unified SA-based perspective on explanations in ML and the importance of acknowledging related work.
- It bridges the gap between the ML and SA fields by describing how the ML process is a system suitable for SA, how existing ML interpretation methods relate to this perspective, and how other SA techniques could be applied to ML.
Plain English Explanation
The paper suggests that the way we interpret machine learning models or the process of building these models can be seen as a type of sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis is a general method used to understand how complex systems, like those found in environmental modeling, engineering, or economics, work.
The authors want to bring attention to the benefits of viewing ML explanations through this sensitivity analysis lens. They also emphasize the importance of recognizing the connections between these two fields. The paper aims to explain how the ML process is well-suited for sensitivity analysis, how existing ML interpretation methods fit into this perspective, and how other sensitivity analysis techniques could be useful for ML as well.
Technical Explanation
The paper formally describes the relationships between the ML process and sensitivity analysis. First, it shows how the ML process can be considered a system that is suitable for sensitivity analysis, as both involve complex, interconnected components that need to be understood.
Next, the paper examines how existing ML interpretation methods can be viewed through the lens of sensitivity analysis. It explains the similarities between these interpretation techniques and established SA approaches.
Finally, the paper discusses how other sensitivity analysis methods, beyond those currently used in ML, could potentially be applied to help explain and improve machine learning models. This could lead to new insights and a more comprehensive understanding of ML systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for adopting a sensitivity analysis perspective on ML interpretations and model-building. However, it does not delve deeply into the potential limitations or caveats of this approach. For example, the authors could have discussed the computational challenges or the need for domain-specific adaptations when applying certain sensitivity analysis techniques to ML.
Additionally, the paper does not explore potential issues that may arise when trying to integrate these two fields, such as differences in terminology, methodologies, or the cultural contexts in which they have been developed. Addressing these types of concerns could have strengthened the paper's arguments and provided a more well-rounded perspective.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper proposes that interpreting machine learning models or the ML model-building process can be viewed as a form of sensitivity analysis, a widely used approach for understanding complex systems. By bridging the gap between these two fields, the authors highlight the benefits of a unified SA-based perspective on ML explanations and the importance of acknowledging related work. This cross-pollination of ideas has the potential to lead to new advancements in both the ML and sensitivity analysis domains.
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
Position Paper: Bridging the Gap Between Machine Learning and Sensitivity Analysis
Christian A. Scholbeck, Julia Moosbauer, Giuseppe Casalicchio, Hoshin Gupta, Bernd Bischl, Christian Heumann
We argue that interpretations of machine learning (ML) models or the model-building process can be seen as a form of sensitivity analysis (SA), a general methodology used to explain complex systems in many fields such as environmental modeling, engineering, or economics. We address both researchers and practitioners, calling attention to the benefits of a unified SA-based view of explanations in ML and the necessity to fully credit related work. We bridge the gap between both fields by formally describing how (a) the ML process is a system suitable for SA, (b) how existing ML interpretation methods relate to this perspective, and (c) how other SA techniques could be applied to ML.
Read more9/12/2024
🤯
0
Sensitivity-Aware Amortized Bayesian Inference
Lasse Elsemuller, Hans Olischlager, Marvin Schmitt, Paul-Christian Burkner, Ullrich Kothe, Stefan T. Radev
Sensitivity analyses reveal the influence of various modeling choices on the outcomes of statistical analyses. While theoretically appealing, they are overwhelmingly inefficient for complex Bayesian models. In this work, we propose sensitivity-aware amortized Bayesian inference (SA-ABI), a multifaceted approach to efficiently integrate sensitivity analyses into simulation-based inference with neural networks. First, we utilize weight sharing to encode the structural similarities between alternative likelihood and prior specifications in the training process with minimal computational overhead. Second, we leverage the rapid inference of neural networks to assess sensitivity to data perturbations and preprocessing steps. In contrast to most other Bayesian approaches, both steps circumvent the costly bottleneck of refitting the model for each choice of likelihood, prior, or data set. Finally, we propose to use deep ensembles to detect sensitivity arising from unreliable approximation (e.g., due to model misspecification). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in applied modeling problems, ranging from disease outbreak dynamics and global warming thresholds to human decision-making. Our results support sensitivity-aware inference as a default choice for amortized Bayesian workflows, automatically providing modelers with insights into otherwise hidden dimensions.
Read more5/9/2024
0
Sensitivity analysis using the Metamodel of Optimal Prognosis
Thomas Most, Johannes Will
In real case applications within the virtual prototyping process, it is not always possible to reduce the complexity of the physical models and to obtain numerical models which can be solved quickly. Usually, every single numerical simulation takes hours or even days. Although the progresses in numerical methods and high performance computing, in such cases, it is not possible to explore various model configurations, hence efficient surrogate models are required. Generally the available meta-model techniques show several advantages and disadvantages depending on the investigated problem. In this paper we present an automatic approach for the selection of the optimal suitable meta-model for the actual problem. Together with an automatic reduction of the variable space using advanced filter techniques an efficient approximation is enabled also for high dimensional problems. This filter techniques enable a reduction of the high dimensional variable space to a much smaller subspace where meta-model-based sensitivity analyses are carried out to assess the influence of important variables and to identify the optimal subspace with corresponding surrogate model which enables the most accurate probabilistic analysis. For this purpose we investigate variance-based and moment-free sensitivity measures in combination with advanced meta-models as moving least squares and kriging.
Read more8/9/2024
🏷️
0
Beyond development: Challenges in deploying machine learning models for structural engineering applications
Mohsen Zaker Esteghamati, Brennan Bean, Henry V. Burton, M. Z. Naser
Machine learning (ML)-based solutions are rapidly changing the landscape of many fields, including structural engineering. Despite their promising performance, these approaches are usually only demonstrated as proof-of-concept in structural engineering, and are rarely deployed for real-world applications. This paper aims to illustrate the challenges of developing ML models suitable for deployment through two illustrative examples. Among various pitfalls, the presented discussion focuses on model overfitting and underspecification, training data representativeness, variable omission bias, and cross-validation. The results highlight the importance of implementing rigorous model validation techniques through adaptive sampling, careful physics-informed feature selection, and considerations of both model complexity and generalizability.
Read more4/22/2024