On the Robustness of Global Feature Effect Explanations
2406.09069
0
0
Abstract
We study the robustness of global post-hoc explanations for predictive models trained on tabular data. Effects of predictor features in black-box supervised learning are an essential diagnostic tool for model debugging and scientific discovery in applied sciences. However, how vulnerable they are to data and model perturbations remains an open research question. We introduce several theoretical bounds for evaluating the robustness of partial dependence plots and accumulated local effects. Our experimental results with synthetic and real-world datasets quantify the gap between the best and worst-case scenarios of (mis)interpreting machine learning predictions globally.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper examines the robustness of global feature effect explanations, which are a type of post-hoc interpretability method used to understand how machine learning models make predictions.
ā¢ Global feature effect explanations aim to quantify the overall impact that each input feature has on a model's output, providing a high-level understanding of the model's behavior.
ā¢ The authors investigate the stability and reliability of these explanations, exploring how sensitive they are to changes in the underlying data or model architecture.
Plain English Explanation
When machine learning models make predictions, it's important to understand how they arrive at those decisions. Global feature effect explanations are a way to get a big-picture view of what's driving a model's outputs. They essentially measure the overall influence that each input feature has on the model's predictions.
However, these explanations might not always be as reliable as we'd like. The authors of this paper wanted to see how robust, or stable, these global feature effect explanations are. In other words, they checked whether the explanations change a lot if you tweak the underlying data or the model architecture.
If the explanations are very sensitive to these kinds of changes, it means we can't really trust them to give us an accurate, trustworthy understanding of how the model is working. But if they hold up well, it boosts our confidence in using them to interpret the model's behavior.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on two popular global feature effect methods: partial dependence plots (PDPs) and accumulated local effects (ALEs). These techniques quantify the average impact that each input feature has on the model's output, providing a high-level explanation of the model's behavior.
The authors assess the robustness of these global feature effect explanations in several ways:
-
Data distribution shifts: They evaluate how the explanations change when the training data distribution is modified, such as by removing certain subgroups or introducing covariate shift.
-
Model architecture changes: They examine how the explanations vary when the underlying model architecture is altered, such as by changing the network depth or the activation functions.
-
Model complexity: They investigate how the explanations are affected by the complexity of the underlying model, comparing simpler models like linear regression to more complex ones like deep neural networks.
Through extensive experiments on various benchmark datasets and model types, the authors find that global feature effect explanations can be quite sensitive to these types of changes. The stability and reliability of the explanations depend heavily on factors like the dataset, model complexity, and specific explanation method used.
Critical Analysis
The authors acknowledge several limitations and caveats in their analysis. For example, they note that their findings may not generalize to all possible datasets and model types, and that the suitability of global feature effect explanations likely depends on the specific use case and interpretability requirements.
Additionally, the paper does not provide guidance on how to assess the robustness of these explanations in practice or how to mitigate the observed sensitivity issues. Further research would be needed to develop more robust and reliable global feature effect explanation methods.
It's also worth considering other types of model interpretability techniques, such as local explanations or counterfactual explanations, which may be more suitable in certain scenarios where global feature effects are not sufficiently robust.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the potential limitations of global feature effect explanations, showing that they can be sensitive to changes in the data distribution, model architecture, and model complexity. While these techniques can provide valuable high-level insights into how machine learning models make predictions, their reliability and trustworthiness need to be carefully evaluated in the context of the specific application and interpretability requirements.
The findings suggest that researchers and practitioners should exercise caution when relying on global feature effect explanations and consider complementary interpretability methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of model behavior. Ongoing work to develop more robust and stable explanation techniques will be crucial for building trust and transparency in complex AI systems.
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
Can you trust your explanations? A robustness test for feature attribution methods
Ilaria Vascotto, Alex Rodriguez, Alessandro Bonaita, Luca Bortolussi
0
0
The increase of legislative concerns towards the usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently led to a series of regulations striving for a more transparent, trustworthy and accountable AI. Along with these proposals, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has seen a rapid growth but the usage of its techniques has at times led to unexpected results. The robustness of the approaches is, in fact, a key property often overlooked: it is necessary to evaluate the stability of an explanation (to random and adversarial perturbations) to ensure that the results are trustable. To this end, we propose a test to evaluate the robustness to non-adversarial perturbations and an ensemble approach to analyse more in depth the robustness of XAI methods applied to neural networks and tabular datasets. We will show how leveraging manifold hypothesis and ensemble approaches can be beneficial to an in-depth analysis of the robustness.
6/21/2024
š
Generalization Ability of Feature-based Performance Prediction Models: A Statistical Analysis across Benchmarks
Ana Nikolikj, Ana Kostovska, Gjorgjina Cenikj, Carola Doerr, Tome Eftimov
0
0
This study examines the generalization ability of algorithm performance prediction models across various benchmark suites. Comparing the statistical similarity between the problem collections with the accuracy of performance prediction models that are based on exploratory landscape analysis features, we observe that there is a positive correlation between these two measures. Specifically, when the high-dimensional feature value distributions between training and testing suites lack statistical significance, the model tends to generalize well, in the sense that the testing errors are in the same range as the training errors. Two experiments validate these findings: one involving the standard benchmark suites, the BBOB and CEC collections, and another using five collections of affine combinations of BBOB problem instances.
5/22/2024
Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach
Jacob Dineen, Don Kridel, Daniel Dolk, David Castillo
0
0
A high-velocity paradigm shift towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged in recent years. Highly complex Machine Learning (ML) models have flourished in many tasks of intelligence, and the questions have started to shift away from traditional metrics of validity towards something deeper: What is this model telling me about my data, and how is it arriving at these conclusions? Inconsistencies between XAI and modeling techniques can have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon the efficacy of these explainability approaches. To address these problems, we propose a systematic, perturbation-based analysis against a popular, model-agnostic method in XAI, SHapley Additive exPlanations (Shap). We devise algorithms to generate relative feature importance in settings of dynamic inference amongst a suite of popular machine learning and deep learning methods, and metrics that allow us to quantify how well explanations generated under the static case hold. We propose a taxonomy for feature importance methodology, measure alignment, and observe quantifiable similarity amongst explanation models across several datasets.
5/31/2024
GLANCE: Global Actions in a Nutshell for Counterfactual Explainability
Ioannis Emiris, Dimitris Fotakis, Giorgos Giannopoulos, Dimitrios Gunopulos, Loukas Kavouras, Kleopatra Markou, Eleni Psaroudaki, Dimitrios Rontogiannis, Dimitris Sacharidis, Nikolaos Theologitis, Dimitrios Tomaras, Konstantinos Tsopelas
0
0
Counterfactual explanations have emerged as an important tool to understand, debug, and audit complex machine learning models. To offer global counterfactual explainability, state-of-the-art methods construct summaries of local explanations, offering a trade-off among conciseness, counterfactual effectiveness, and counterfactual cost or burden imposed on instances. In this work, we provide a concise formulation of the problem of identifying global counterfactuals and establish principled criteria for comparing solutions, drawing inspiration from Pareto dominance. We introduce innovative algorithms designed to address the challenge of finding global counterfactuals for either the entire input space or specific partitions, employing clustering and decision trees as key components. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive experimental evaluation, considering various instances of the problem and comparing our proposed algorithms with state-of-the-art methods. The results highlight the consistent capability of our algorithms to generate meaningful and interpretable global counterfactual explanations.
5/30/2024