Towards a More Reliable Interpretation of Machine Learning Outputs for Safety-Critical Systems Using Feature Importance Fusion
Source abstract
Abstract
When machine learning supports decision-making in safety-critical systems, it is important to verify and understand the reasons why a particular output is produced. Although feature importance calculation approaches assist in interpretation, there is a lack of consensus regarding how features’ importance is quantified, which makes the explanations offered for the outcomes mostly unreliable. A possible solution to address the lack of agreement is to combine the results from multiple feature importance quantifiers to reduce the variance in estimates and to improve the quality of explanations. Our hypothesis is that this leads to more robust and trustworthy explanations of the contribution of each feature to machine learning predictions. To test this hypothesis, we propose an extensible model-agnostic framework divided in four main parts: (i) traditional data pre-processing and preparation for predictive machine learning models, (ii) predictive machine learning, (iii) feature importance quantification, and (iv) feature importance decision fusion using an ensemble strategy. Our approach is tested on synthetic data, where the ground truth is known. We compare different fusion approaches and their results for both training and test sets. We also investigate how different characteristics within the datasets affect the quality of the feature importance ensembles studied. The results show that, overall, our feature importance ensemble framework produces 15% less feature importance errors compared with existing methods. Additionally, the results reveal that different levels of noise in the datasets do not affect the feature importance ensembles’ ability to accurately quantify feature importance, whereas the feature importance quantification error increases with the number of features and number of orthogonal informative features. We also discuss the implications of our findings on the quality of explanations provided to safety-critical systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Risk and Safety Analysis · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Gas Turbine and Transmissions Research Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK
Advanced Data Analysis Centre, School of Computer Science, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
Funding
Marie Curie Initial Training Networks
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. A body sensor data fusion and deep recurrent neural network-based behavior recognition approach for robust healthcare10.1016/j.inffus.2019.08.004 ↗
2. Deep learning for healthcare: Review, opportunities and challenges10.1093/bib/bbx044 ↗
3. Accurate and reproducible invasive breast cancer detection in whole-slide images: A Deep Learning approach for quantifying tumor extent10.1038/srep46450 ↗
4. Rengasamy, D., Morvan, H.P., and Figueredo, G.P. (2018, January 4–7). Deep learning approaches to aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul: A review. Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, USA.10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569502 ↗
5. Rengasamy, D., Jafari, M., Rothwell, B., Chen, X., and Figueredo, G.P. (2020). Deep Learning With Dynamically Weighted Loss Function for Sensor-based Prognostics and Health Management. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20030723 ↗
6. Yang, T., Chen, B., Gao, Y., Feng, J., Zhang, H., and Wang, X. (2013, January 16–18). Data mining-based fault detection and prediction methods for in-orbit satellite. Proceedings of the 2013 2nd International Conference on Measurement, Information and Control, Harbin, China.
7. Mafeni Mase, J., Chapman, P., Figueredo, G., and Torres Torres, M. (2020). Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Driver Distraction Detection. Machine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science (LOD) 2020, Springer.10.1109/ICTC49870.2020.9289588 ↗
8. Driver Distraction Identification with an Ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks10.1155/2019/4125865 ↗
9. Mafeni Mase, J., Agrawal, U., Pekaslan, D., Torres Torres, M., Figueredo, G., Chapman, P., and Mesgarpour, M. (2020, January 20–23). Capturing Uncertainty in Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Behaviour. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Rhodes, Greece.10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294378 ↗
10. Farrar, C.R., and Worden, K. (2012). Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118443118 ↗
11. A machine learning-based algorithm for processing massive data collected from the mechanical components of movable bridges10.1016/j.autcon.2016.02.008 ↗
12. In-Process monitoring of porosity during laser additive manufacturing process
13. Deep learning for smart manufacturing: Methods and applications10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.01.003 ↗
14. Seshia, S.A., Sadigh, D., and Sastry, S.S. (2016). Towards verified artificial intelligence. arXiv.
15. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., and Fong, R. (2020). Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv.
16. Asilomar survey: Researcher perspectives on ethical principles and guidelines for BCI research10.1080/2326263X.2018.1530010 ↗
17. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
18. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 ↗
19. Gunning, D. (2017). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), DARPA.
20. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 ↗
21. Chakraborty, S., Tomsett, R., Raghavendra, R., Harborne, D., Alzantot, M., Cerutti, F., Srivastava, M., Preece, A., Julier, S., and Rao, R.M. (2017, January 4–8). Interpretability of deep learning models: A survey of results. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computed, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/UIC-ATC.2017.8397411 ↗
22. Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134 ↗
23. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.L., Zeileis, A., and Hothorn, T. (2007). Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform., 8.10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 ↗
24. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017, January 4–9). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA.
25. Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., and Yan, Q. (2017, January 6–11). Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia.
26. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
27. The random subspace method for constructing decision forests10.1109/34.709601 ↗
28. Reconciling performance and interpretability in customer churn prediction using ensemble learning based on generalized additive models10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.014 ↗
29. Development of a stacked ensemble model for forecasting and analyzing daily average PM2.5 concentrations in Beijing, China10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.040 ↗
30. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x ↗
31. Freund, Y., and Schapire, R.E. (1996, January 3–6). Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, Bari, Italy.
32. Estimating the dimension of a model10.1214/aos/1176344136 ↗
33. Ruyssinck, J., Huynh-Thu, V.A., Geurts, P., Dhaene, T., Demeester, P., and Saeys, Y. (2014). NIMEFI: Gene regulatory network inference using multiple ensemble feature importance algorithms. PLoS ONE, 9.10.1371/journal.pone.0092709 ↗
34. Voting in Transfer Learning System for Ground-Based Cloud Classification10.3390/make3030028 ↗
35. Nguyen, D., Smith, N.A., and Rose, C. (2011, January 24). Author age prediction from text using linear regression. Proceedings of the 5th ACL-HLT Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, Portland, OR, USA.
36. A simple and efficient algorithm for gene selection using sparse logistic regression10.1093/bioinformatics/btg308 ↗
37. Song, L., Langfelder, P., and Horvath, S. (2013). Random generalized linear model: A highly accurate and interpretable ensemble predictor. BMC Bioinform., 14.10.1186/1471-2105-14-5 ↗
38. Kira, K., and Rendell, L.A. (1992). A practical approach to feature selection. Machine Learning Proceedings 1992, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-1-55860-247-2.50037-1 ↗
39. A value for n-person games
40. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
41. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why should I trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
42. Alvarez-Melis, D., and Jaakkola, T.S. (2018). On the robustness of interpretability methods. arXiv.
43. Kendall, M.G. (1948). Rank Correlation Methods, Griffin.
44. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
45. Impact of noise on credit risk prediction: Does data quality really matter?10.3233/IDA-130623 ↗
46. Kalapanidas, E., Avouris, N., Craciun, M., and Neagu, D. (2003, January 21–23). Machine learning algorithms: A study on noise sensitivity. Proceedings of the 1st Balcan Conference in Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greek.
47. Importance of input data normalization for the application of neural networks to complex industrial problems10.1109/23.589532 ↗
48. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization
49. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting
50. Kukačka, J., Golkov, V., and Cremers, D. (2017). Regularization for deep learning: A taxonomy. arXiv.
51. Training with Noise is Equivalent to Tikhonov Regularization10.1162/neco.1995.7.1.108 ↗