Comparing interpretability and explainability for feature selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05328v1
• Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 20:01:23 GMT
• Title: Comparing interpretability and explainability for feature selection
• Authors: Jack Dunn, Luca Mingardi, Ying Daisy Zhuo
• Abstract summary: We investigate the performance of variable importance as a feature selection method across various black-box and interpretable machine learning methods. The results show that regardless of whether we use the native variable importance method or SHAP, XGBoost fails to clearly distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features.
• Score: 0.6015898117103068
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A common approach for feature selection is to examine the variable importance scores for a machine learning model, as a way to understand which features are the most relevant for making predictions. Given the significance of feature selection, it is crucial for the calculated importance scores to reflect reality. Falsely overestimating the importance of irrelevant features can lead to false discoveries, while underestimating importance of relevant features may lead us to discard important features, resulting in poor model performance. Additionally, black-box models like XGBoost provide state-of-the art predictive performance, but cannot be easily understood by humans, and thus we rely on variable importance scores or methods for explainability like SHAP to offer insight into their behavior. In this paper, we investigate the performance of variable importance as a feature selection method across various black-box and interpretable machine learning methods. We compare the ability of CART, Optimal Trees, XGBoost and SHAP to correctly identify the relevant subset of variables across a number of experiments. The results show that regardless of whether we use the native variable importance method or SHAP, XGBoost fails to clearly distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features. On the other hand, the interpretable methods are able to correctly and efficiently identify irrelevant features, and thus offer significantly better performance for feature selection.

Related papers

• LLM-Select: Feature Selection with Large Language Models [64.5099482021597]
  Large language models (LLMs) are capable of selecting the most predictive features, with performance rivaling the standard tools of data science. Our findings suggest that LLMs may be useful not only for selecting the best features for training but also for deciding which features to collect in the first place.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T22:23:40Z)
• Iterative Feature Boosting for Explainable Speech Emotion Recognition [17.568724398229232]
  We present a new supervised SER method based on an efficient feature engineering approach. We pay particular attention to the explainability of results to evaluate feature relevance and refine feature sets. The proposed method outperforms human-level performance (HLP) and state-of-the-art machine learning methods in emotion recognition on the TESS dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T15:44:27Z)
• Causal Feature Selection via Transfer Entropy [59.999594949050596]
  Causal discovery aims to identify causal relationships between features with observational data. We introduce a new causal feature selection approach that relies on the forward and backward feature selection procedures. We provide theoretical guarantees on the regression and classification errors for both the exact and the finite-sample cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T08:04:45Z)
• Feature Importance versus Feature Influence and What It Signifies for Explainable AI [0.0]
  Feature importance should not be confused with the feature influence used by most state-of-the-art post-hoc Explainable AI methods. The Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) method provides a unified definition of global and local feature importance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T13:46:18Z)
• Deep Feature Selection Using a Novel Complementary Feature Mask [5.904240881373805]
  We deal with feature selection by exploiting the features with less importance scores. We propose a feature selection framework based on a novel complementary feature mask. Our method is generic and can be easily integrated into existing deep-learning-based feature selection approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-25T18:03:30Z)
• Compactness Score: A Fast Filter Method for Unsupervised Feature Selection [66.84571085643928]
  We propose a fast unsupervised feature selection method, named as, Compactness Score (CSUFS) to select desired features. Our proposed algorithm seems to be more accurate and efficient compared with existing algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T13:01:37Z)
• Can contrastive learning avoid shortcut solutions? [88.249082564465]
  implicit feature modification (IFM) is a method for altering positive and negative samples in order to guide contrastive models towards capturing a wider variety of predictive features. IFM reduces feature suppression, and as a result improves performance on vision and medical imaging tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-21T16:22:43Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)
• Towards a More Reliable Interpretation of Machine Learning Outputs for Safety-Critical Systems using Feature Importance Fusion [0.0]
  We introduce a novel fusion metric and compare it to the state-of-the-art. Our approach is tested on synthetic data, where the ground truth is known. Results show that our feature importance ensemble Framework overall produces 15% less feature importance error compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T15:51:52Z)
• Nonparametric Feature Impact and Importance [0.6123324869194193]
  We give mathematical definitions of feature impact and importance, derived from partial dependence curves, that operate directly on the data. To assess quality, we show that features ranked by these definitions are competitive with existing feature selection techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T17:07:35Z)
• Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functions [55.660255727031725]
  Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. We develop a new measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T00:45:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.