journal article·2023-07-29Open access

Specific-Input LIME Explanations for Tabular Data Based on Deep Learning Models

Junkang An, Yiwan Zhang, Inwhee Joe

Applied Sciences· Volume 13· Issue 15

Abstract

Deep learning researchers believe that as deep learning models evolve, they can perform well on many tasks. However, the complex parameters of deep learning models make it difficult for users to understand how deep learning models make predictions. In this paper, we propose the specific-input local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) model, a novel interpretable artificial intelligence (XAI) method that interprets deep learning models of tabular data. The specific-input process uses feature importance and partial dependency plots (PDPs) to select the “what” and “how”. In our experiments, we first obtain a basic interpretation of the data by simulating user behaviour. Second, we use our approach to understand “which” features deep learning models focus on and how these features affect the model’s predictions. From the experimental results, we find that this approach improves the stability of LIME interpretations, compensates for the problem of LIME only focusing on local interpretations, and achieves a balance between global and local interpretations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Machine Learning in Healthcare · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Science, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

Funding

Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP)

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. (2018, June 06). Statista. Revenues from the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Market Worldwide from 2016 to 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/607716/worldwide-artificial-intelligence-market-revenues/.
2. Panettam, K. (2017). Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2018, Gartner, Inc.. Smarter with Gartner.
3. The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery10.1145/3236386.3241340 ↗
4. Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv.
5. A survey of methods for explaining black box models10.1145/3236009 ↗
6. Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model10.1214/15-AOAS848 ↗
7. Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., and Elhadad, N. (2015, January 10–13). Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney, Australia.10.1145/2783258.2788613 ↗
8. Xu, K., Ba, J., Kiros, R., Cho, K., Courville, A., Salakhudinov, R., Zemel, R., and Bengio, Y. (2015, January 6–11). Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille, France.
9. Supersparse linear integer models for optimized medical scoring systems10.1007/s10994-015-5528-6 ↗
10. Yang, C., Rangarajan, A., and Ranka, S. (2018, January 28–30). Global model interpretation via recursive partitioning. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 20th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 16th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS), Exeter, UK.10.1109/HPCC/SmartCity/DSS.2018.00256 ↗
11. 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 ↗
12. How to explain individual classification decisions
13. Molnar, C. (2020). Interpretable Machine Learning, Lulu. com.
14. Zhao, X., Huang, W., Huang, X., Robu, V., and Flynn, D. (2021). Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, PMLR.
15. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
16. Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties10.1016/j.dss.2009.05.016 ↗
17. Vaishali, R., Sasikala, R., Ramasubbareddy, S., Remya, S., and Nalluri, S. (2017, January 29–31). Genetic algorithm based feature selection and MOE Fuzzy classification algorithm on Pima Indians Diabetes dataset. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI), Lagos, Nigeria.10.1109/ICCNI.2017.8123815 ↗
18. Wang, C., Wu, Q., Weimer, M., and Zhu, E. (2021, January 4–7). FLAML: A fast and lightweight automl library. Proceedings of the Machine Learning and Systems, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
19. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017, January 4–9). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
20. Detection of COVID-19 findings by the local interpretable model-agnostic explanations method of types-based activations extracted from CNNs10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103128 ↗
21. LImref: Local interpretable model agnostic rule-based explanations for forecasting, with an application to electricity smart meter data