From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees

Tree-based machine learning models such as random forests, decision trees and gradient boosted trees are popular nonlinear predictive models, yet comparatively little attention has been paid to explaining their predictions. Here we improve the interpretability of tree-based models through three main contributions. (1) A polynomial time algorithm to compute optimal explanations based on game theory. (2) A new type of explanation that directly measures local feature interaction effects. (3) A new set of tools for understanding global model structure based on combining many local explanations of each prediction. We apply these tools to three medical machine learning problems and show how combining many high-quality local explanations allows us to represent global structure while retaining local faithfulness to the original model. These tools enable us to (1) identify high-magnitude but low-frequency nonlinear mortality risk factors in the US population, (2) highlight distinct population subgroups with shared risk characteristics, (3) identify nonlinear interaction effects among risk factors for chronic kidney disease and (4) monitor a machine learning model deployed in a hospital by identifying which features are degrading the model’s performance over time. Given the popularity of tree-based machine learning models, these improvements to their interpretability have implications across a broad set of domains. Tree-based machine learning models are widely used in domains such as healthcare, finance and public services. The authors present an explanation method for trees that enables the computation of optimal local explanations for individual predictions, and demonstrate their method on three medical datasets.

[1]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV) , 2017, ICML.

[2]  Tianqi Chen,et al.  XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System , 2016, KDD.

[3]  Ashley Deeks,et al.  The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence , 2019 .

[4]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging , 2014, NeuroImage.

[5]  J. Feldman,et al.  Plan and operation of the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study, 1992. , 1997, Vital and health statistics. Ser. 1, Programs and collection procedures.

[6]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[7]  Motoaki Kawanabe,et al.  How to Explain Individual Classification Decisions , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[8]  Bolei Zhou,et al.  Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representations , 2017, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[9]  Rui Jiang,et al.  A random forest approach to the detection of epistatic interactions in case-control studies , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[10]  K. Lunetta,et al.  Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests , 2004, BMC Genetics.

[11]  Jean-Luc Marichal,et al.  Axiomatic characterizations of probabilistic and cardinal-probabilistic interaction indices , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[12]  Dominik Janzing,et al.  Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causality problem , 2019, AISTATS.

[13]  Scott M. Lundberg,et al.  Explainable machine-learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery , 2018, Nature Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  Jackson T. Wright,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Alexander Binder,et al.  Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn , 2019, Nature Communications.

[16]  Scott M. Lundberg,et al.  Explainable machine learning predictions to help anesthesiologists prevent hypoxemia during surgery , 2017, bioRxiv.

[17]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[18]  Z. Al-Aly,et al.  Association between Monocyte Count and Risk of Incident CKD and Progression to ESRD. , 2017, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[19]  Yair Zick,et al.  Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence: Theory and Experiments with Learning Systems , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).

[20]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations , 2018, AAAI.

[21]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Understanding Neural Networks Through Deep Visualization , 2015, ArXiv.

[22]  Erik Strumbelj,et al.  Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions , 2014, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[23]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  Tomomi Matsui,et al.  NP-completeness for calculating power indices of weighted majority games , 2001, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Dumitru Erhan,et al.  A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks , 2018, NeurIPS.

[26]  F. Fan,et al.  White blood cell count predicts the odds of kidney function decline in a Chinese community-based population , 2017, BMC Nephrology.

[27]  L. Shapley A Value for n-person Games , 1988 .

[28]  Denali Molitor,et al.  Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations , 2018, NeurIPS.

[29]  E. Shortliffe,et al.  Clinical Decision Support in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. , 2018, JAMA.

[30]  Mark D. Huffman,et al.  Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association , 2016, Circulation.

[31]  H. Young Monotonic solutions of cooperative games , 1985 .

[32]  Cengiz Öztireli,et al.  Towards better understanding of gradient-based attribution methods for Deep Neural Networks , 2017, ICLR.

[33]  Matt Fredrikson,et al.  Influence-Directed Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC).

[34]  W. Heiser,et al.  The identification of Parkinson's disease subtypes using cluster analysis: A systematic review , 2010, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.