A Unified Framework for Input Feature Attribution Analysis
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Proposes a unified framework for evaluating and comparing different input feature attribution methods used to explain the predictions of machine learning models
- Introduces a perturbation-based approach to assess the faithfulness and robustness of these explanation methods
- Demonstrates the framework's effectiveness through experiments on various models and datasets
Plain English Explanation
The paper presents a unified framework for evaluating and comparing different input feature attribution methods used to explain the predictions of machine learning models. These feature attribution methods, such as SHAP and LIME, try to identify the most important input features that contributed to a model's output.
The researchers introduced a perturbation-based approach to assess the faithfulness and robustness of these explanation methods. Faithfulness refers to how well the explanation matches the actual decision-making process of the model, while robustness measures how stable the explanations are to small changes in the input.
By applying this framework to various models and datasets, the paper demonstrates its effectiveness in evaluating and comparing different explanation methods. This can help researchers and practitioners choose the most appropriate explanation method for their specific needs and applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a unified framework for evaluating and comparing different input feature attribution methods used to explain the predictions of machine learning models. The researchers introduce a perturbation-based approach to assess the faithfulness and robustness of these explanation methods.
Faithfulness refers to how well the explanation matches the actual decision-making process of the model, while robustness measures how stable the explanations are to small changes in the input. The framework involves systematically perturbing the input features and observing the changes in the model's predictions and the corresponding explanations.
The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their framework through experiments on various models, including logistic regression, random forests, and neural networks, as well as different datasets, such as image classification and text classification tasks. The results show that the framework can effectively evaluate and compare different explanation methods, helping researchers and practitioners choose the most appropriate method for their specific needs and applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive and rigorous framework for evaluating and comparing input feature attribution methods, which is a crucial component in the development and deployment of explainable AI systems. The perturbation-based approach introduced in the paper is a well-designed and principled method for assessing the faithfulness and robustness of these explanations.
However, the paper does not address certain limitations and potential issues with the proposed framework. For example, the framework primarily focuses on local explanations, which may not capture global patterns in the model's decision-making process. Additionally, the framework assumes that the underlying model is differentiable, which may not always be the case, particularly for black-box models.
Furthermore, the paper does not discuss the computational efficiency of the framework, which could be an important factor when dealing with large-scale or real-time applications. It would also be interesting to see the framework applied to a wider range of models and datasets to further validate its generalizability and identify any potential biases or limitations.
Conclusion
This paper presents a unified framework for evaluating and comparing input feature attribution methods used to explain the predictions of machine learning models. By introducing a perturbation-based approach to assess the faithfulness and robustness of these explanations, the framework provides a principled and systematic way to evaluate and compare different explanation methods.
The demonstrated effectiveness of the framework across various models and datasets suggests that it can be a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners in the field of explainable AI. The insights gained from this framework can help guide the development and deployment of more faithful and robust explanation methods, ultimately enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of machine learning 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
0
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.
Read more6/24/2024
🧪
0
Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations
Juan D. Pinto, Luc Paquette
The challenge of creating interpretable models has been taken up by two main research communities: ML researchers primarily focused on lower-level explainability methods that suit the needs of engineers, and HCI researchers who have more heavily emphasized user-centered approaches often based on participatory design methods. This paper reviews how these communities have evaluated interpretability, identifying overlaps and semantic misalignments. We propose moving towards a unified framework of evaluation criteria and lay the groundwork for such a framework by articulating the relationships between existing criteria. We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models analyzed via post-hoc techniques. We further argue that useful explanations require both faithfulness and intelligibility. Explanation plausibility is a prerequisite for intelligibility, while stability is a prerequisite for explanation faithfulness. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
Read more7/16/2024
0
Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach
Jacob Dineen, Don Kridel, Daniel Dolk, David Castillo
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.
Read more5/31/2024
0
New!Additive-feature-attribution methods: a review on explainable artificial intelligence for fluid dynamics and heat transfer
Andr'es Cremades, Sergio Hoyas, Ricardo Vinuesa
The use of data-driven methods in fluid mechanics has surged dramatically in recent years due to their capacity to adapt to the complex and multi-scale nature of turbulent flows, as well as to detect patterns in large-scale simulations or experimental tests. In order to interpret the relationships generated in the models during the training process, numerical attributions need to be assigned to the input features. One important example are the additive-feature-attribution methods. These explainability methods link the input features with the model prediction, providing an interpretation based on a linear formulation of the models. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP values) are formulated as the only possible interpretation that offers a unique solution for understanding the model. In this manuscript, the additive-feature-attribution methods are presented, showing four common implementations in the literature: kernel SHAP, tree SHAP, gradient SHAP, and deep SHAP. Then, the main applications of the additive-feature-attribution methods are introduced, dividing them into three main groups: turbulence modeling, fluid-mechanics fundamentals, and applied problems in fluid dynamics and heat transfer. This review shows thatexplainability techniques, and in particular additive-feature-attribution methods, are crucial for implementing interpretable and physics-compliant deep-learning models in the fluid-mechanics field.
Read more9/19/2024