Probabilistic Scoring Lists for Interpretable Machine Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21535v1
• Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:44:54 GMT
• Title: Probabilistic Scoring Lists for Interpretable Machine Learning
• Authors: Jonas Hanselle, Stefan Heid, Johannes Fürnkranz, Eyke Hüllermeier,
• Abstract summary: A scoring system is a simple decision model that checks a set of features, adds a certain number of points to a total score for each feature that is satisfied, and finally makes a decision by comparing the total score to a threshold. We propose a practically motivated extension of scoring systems called probabilistic scoring lists (PSL), as well as a method for learning PSLs from data.
• Score: 20.644711679310152
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A scoring system is a simple decision model that checks a set of features, adds a certain number of points to a total score for each feature that is satisfied, and finally makes a decision by comparing the total score to a threshold. Scoring systems have a long history of active use in safety-critical domains such as healthcare and justice, where they provide guidance for making objective and accurate decisions. Given their genuine interpretability, the idea of learning scoring systems from data is obviously appealing from the perspective of explainable AI. In this paper, we propose a practically motivated extension of scoring systems called probabilistic scoring lists (PSL), as well as a method for learning PSLs from data. Instead of making a deterministic decision, a PSL represents uncertainty in the form of probability distributions, or, more generally, probability intervals. Moreover, in the spirit of decision lists, a PSL evaluates features one by one and stops as soon as a decision can be made with enough confidence. To evaluate our approach, we conduct a case study in the medical domain.

Related papers

• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework in Large Language Models (LLMs) We derive novel metrics with high-probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model. Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• The Distributional Uncertainty of the SHAP score in Explainable Machine Learning [2.655371341356892]
  We propose a principled framework for reasoning on SHAP scores under unknown entity population distributions. We study the basic problems of finding maxima and minima of this function, which allows us to determine tight ranges for the SHAP scores of all features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T13:04:02Z)
• Preservation of Feature Stability in Machine Learning Under Data Uncertainty for Decision Support in Critical Domains [0.0]
  Decision-making in human activities often relies on incomplete data, even in critical domains. This paper addresses this gap by conducting a set of experiments using traditional machine learning methods. We found that the ML descriptive approach maintains higher classification accuracy while ensuring the stability of feature selection as data incompleteness increases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T22:11:54Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions [4.362723406385396]
  We show how multiverse analysis can be used to better understand fairness implications of design and evaluation decisions. Our results highlight how decisions regarding the evaluation of a system can lead to vastly different fairness metrics for the same model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T12:32:43Z)
• Value-Distributional Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [59.758009422067]
  Quantifying uncertainty about a policy's long-term performance is important to solve sequential decision-making tasks. We study the problem from a model-based Bayesian reinforcement learning perspective. We propose Epistemic Quantile-Regression (EQR), a model-based algorithm that learns a value distribution function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-12T14:59:19Z)
• Improving Selective Visual Question Answering by Learning from Your Peers [74.20167944693424]
  Visual Question Answering (VQA) models can have difficulties abstaining from answering when they are wrong. We propose Learning from Your Peers (LYP) approach for training multimodal selection functions for making abstention decisions. Our approach uses predictions from models trained on distinct subsets of the training data as targets for optimizing a Selective VQA model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T21:22:01Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.