Performance and Interpretability Comparisons of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms: An Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12868v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:04:33 GMT
• Title: Performance and Interpretability Comparisons of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms: An Empirical Study
• Authors: Alice J. Liu, Linwei Hu, Jie Chen, Vijayan Nair
• Abstract summary: The paper is organized in a findings-based manner, with each section providing general conclusions. Overall, XGB and FFNNs were competitive, with FFNNs showing better performance in smooth models. RF did not perform well in general, confirming the findings in the literature.
• Score: 3.7881729884531805
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper compares the performances of three supervised machine learning algorithms in terms of predictive ability and model interpretation on structured or tabular data. The algorithms considered were scikit-learn implementations of extreme gradient boosting machines (XGB) and random forests (RFs), and feedforward neural networks (FFNNs) from TensorFlow. The paper is organized in a findings-based manner, with each section providing general conclusions supported by empirical results from simulation studies that cover a wide range of model complexity and correlation structures among predictors. We considered both continuous and binary responses of different sample sizes. Overall, XGB and FFNNs were competitive, with FFNNs showing better performance in smooth models and tree-based boosting algorithms performing better in non-smooth models. This conclusion held generally for predictive performance, identification of important variables, and determining correct input-output relationships as measured by partial dependence plots (PDPs). FFNNs generally had less over-fitting, as measured by the difference in performance between training and testing datasets. However, the difference with XGB was often small. RFs did not perform well in general, confirming the findings in the literature. All models exhibited different degrees of bias seen in PDPs, but the bias was especially problematic for RFs. The extent of the biases varied with correlation among predictors, response type, and data set sample size. In general, tree-based models tended to over-regularize the fitted model in the tails of predictor distributions. Finally, as to be expected, performances were better for continuous responses compared to binary data and with larger samples.

Related papers

• Ranking and Combining Latent Structured Predictive Scores without Labeled Data [2.5064967708371553]
  This paper introduces a novel structured unsupervised ensemble learning model (SUEL) It exploits the dependency between a set of predictors with continuous predictive scores, rank the predictors without labeled data and combine them to an ensembled score with weights. The efficacy of the proposed methods is rigorously assessed through both simulation studies and real-world application of risk genes discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T20:14:42Z)
• Structured Radial Basis Function Network: Modelling Diversity for Multiple Hypotheses Prediction [51.82628081279621]
  Multi-modal regression is important in forecasting nonstationary processes or with a complex mixture of distributions. A Structured Radial Basis Function Network is presented as an ensemble of multiple hypotheses predictors for regression problems. It is proved that this structured model can efficiently interpolate this tessellation and approximate the multiple hypotheses target distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:27:53Z)
• Quantifying Inherent Randomness in Machine Learning Algorithms [7.591218883378448]
  This paper uses an empirical study to examine the effects of randomness in model training and randomness in the partitioning of a dataset into training and test subsets. We quantify and compare the magnitude of the variation in predictive performance for the following ML algorithms: Random Forests (RFs), Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs), and Feedforward Neural Networks (FFNNs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T15:49:52Z)
• Amortized Inference for Causal Structure Learning [72.84105256353801]
  Learning causal structure poses a search problem that typically involves evaluating structures using a score or independence test. We train a variational inference model to predict the causal structure from observational/interventional data. Our models exhibit robust generalization capabilities under substantial distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T17:37:08Z)
• Discovering Invariant Rationales for Graph Neural Networks [104.61908788639052]
  Intrinsic interpretability of graph neural networks (GNNs) is to find a small subset of the input graph's features. We propose a new strategy of discovering invariant rationale (DIR) to construct intrinsically interpretable GNNs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-30T16:43:40Z)
• Optimal regularizations for data generation with probabilistic graphical models [0.0]
  Empirically, well-chosen regularization schemes dramatically improve the quality of the inferred models. We consider the particular case of L 2 and L 1 regularizations in the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) inference of generative pairwise graphical models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T14:45:16Z)
• Accuracy on the Line: On the Strong Correlation Between Out-of-Distribution and In-Distribution Generalization [89.73665256847858]
  We show that out-of-distribution performance is strongly correlated with in-distribution performance for a wide range of models and distribution shifts. Specifically, we demonstrate strong correlations between in-distribution and out-of-distribution performance on variants of CIFAR-10 & ImageNet. We also investigate cases where the correlation is weaker, for instance some synthetic distribution shifts from CIFAR-10-C and the tissue classification dataset Camelyon17-WILDS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-09T19:48:23Z)
• Post-mortem on a deep learning contest: a Simpson's paradox and the complementary roles of scale metrics versus shape metrics [61.49826776409194]
  We analyze a corpus of models made publicly-available for a contest to predict the generalization accuracy of neural network (NN) models. We identify what amounts to a Simpson's paradox: where "scale" metrics perform well overall but perform poorly on sub partitions of the data. We present two novel shape metrics, one data-independent, and the other data-dependent, which can predict trends in the test accuracy of a series of NNs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T19:19:49Z)
• A Partial Regularization Method for Network Compression [0.0]
  We propose an approach of partial regularization rather than the original form of penalizing all parameters, which is said to be full regularization, to conduct model compression at a higher speed. Experimental results show that as we expected, the computational complexity is reduced by observing less running time in almost all situations. Surprisingly, it helps to improve some important metrics such as regression fitting results and classification accuracy in both training and test phases on multiple datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-03T00:38:27Z)
• Surrogate Locally-Interpretable Models with Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms [8.949704905866888]
  Supervised Machine Learning algorithms have become popular in recent years due to their superior predictive performance over traditional statistical methods. The main focus is on interpretability, the resulting surrogate model also has reasonably good predictive performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-28T23:46:16Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)

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.