In this section, the authors present the evaluation and experimental setup of their proposed approach for Explainable AI (XAI) using counterfactual paths. They generated synthetic data under three conditions: conditional dependency, correlation, and conditional independence. Two features were simulated to fulfill these conditions, while the rest of the features were added as noise. A Random Forest model was trained on this synthetic data and predictions were made based on the training set. To explain the model's behavior, the authors compared the feature importance scores computed by explainers (such as SHAP and LIME) with the model's Gini impurity scores generated by the random forest. A high correlation between these scores indicates that the explainers are capturing underlying patterns in the model's behavior. The authors also studied the capability of explainers to detect important features within the data. They found that model-specific Gini impurity scores efficiently detected simulated ground truth. However, they focused more on simulated features within the data rather than features preferred by the model. For global explanations using SHAP and LIME, feature importance scores were computed as mean absolute values of local explanation scores. In addition to these methods, Conditional Predictive Impact (CPI) was also used for comparison in a data-focused experiment. To evaluate the quality of explanations several metrics were considered such as sensitivity metric which expressed an expectation that substantial changes in a model's decision logic would be reflected in its explanations; fidelity or faithfulness which was used in conjunction with a surrogate model to measure agreement between original and surrogate models; accuracy of random forest classifier on Diabetes dataset which was 0.97 AU C; graphical summary of generated counterfactuals showed that glucose variable caused a significant number of swapped labels when used as first node in counterfactual path etc.. Overall, this evaluation and experimental setup demonstrated how their proposed approach can provide interpretable explanations for model behavior, detect important features within data and evaluate quality of explanations.
- - Evaluation and experimental setup of proposed approach for Explainable AI (XAI) using counterfactual paths
- - Synthetic data generated under three conditions: conditional dependency, correlation, and conditional independence
- - Random Forest model trained on synthetic data and predictions made based on training set
- - Comparison of feature importance scores computed by explainers (such as SHAP and LIME) with model's Gini impurity scores generated by random forest
- - High correlation between scores indicates explainers capturing underlying patterns in model's behavior
- - Study of capability of explainers to detect important features within the data
- - Model-specific Gini impurity scores efficiently detected simulated ground truth for simulated features within the data
- - Global explanations computed using SHAP and LIME by computing mean absolute values of local explanation scores
- - Conditional Predictive Impact (CPI) used for comparison in a data-focused experiment
- - Metrics considered to evaluate quality of explanations: sensitivity metric, fidelity or faithfulness, accuracy of random forest classifier on Diabetes dataset (0.97 AU C)
- - Graphical summary of generated counterfactuals showing significant number of swapped labels when glucose variable used as first node in counterfactual path
- - Proposed approach provides interpretable explanations for model behavior, detects important features within data, and evaluates quality of explanations.
In this study, researchers tested a new way to explain how artificial intelligence (AI) works. They used made-up data that had different relationships between the variables. They trained a model called Random Forest on this data and used it to make predictions. They compared the importance of different features in the model using explainers like SHAP and LIME with scores from the Random Forest model itself. If these scores were similar, it meant that the explainers were doing a good job of understanding how the model worked. The researchers also looked at how well the explainers could find important features in the data. They used a metric called Conditional Predictive Impact (CPI) to compare different experiments. Finally, they evaluated the quality of explanations by looking at metrics like sensitivity, fidelity, and accuracy on a dataset about diabetes."
Definitions- Explainable AI (XAI): A way to understand how artificial intelligence makes decisions.
- Counterfactual paths: Imaginary paths that show what would happen if certain things were different.
- Synthetic data: Made-up data that is not real but is used for testing purposes.
- Conditional dependency: When one variable depends on another variable under certain conditions.
- Correlation: A relationship between two variables where they change together.
- Conditional independence: When one variable does not depend on another variable under certain conditions.
- Random Forest model: A type of machine learning model that uses multiple decision trees to make predictions.
- Predictions: Guesses or estimates about what will happen in
Explainable AI (XAI) Using Counterfactual Paths: Evaluation and Experimental Setup
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a rapidly growing field of research that seeks to explain the behavior of machine learning models. In this article, we will discuss an evaluation and experimental setup proposed by researchers for XAI using counterfactual paths. We will outline the synthetic data generation process, feature selection methods, model training, comparison between explainers and Gini impurity scores, metrics used to evaluate the quality of explanations and more.
Synthetic Data Generation
The authors generated synthetic data under three conditions: conditional dependency, correlation, and conditional independence. Two features were simulated to fulfill these conditions while the rest of the features were added as noise. A Random Forest model was trained on this synthetic data and predictions were made based on the training set.
Feature Selection Methods
To explain the model's behavior, the authors compared feature importance scores computed by explainers such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) and LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) with Gini impurity scores generated by random forest models. A high correlation between these scores indicates that explainers are capturing underlying patterns in a model's behavior. The authors also studied how well explainers can detect important features within data sets; they found that model-specific Gini impurity scores efficiently detected simulated ground truth but focused more on simulated features than those preferred by models themselves. For global explanations using SHAP and LIME, feature importance scores were computed as mean absolute values of local explanation scores. In addition to these methods Conditional Predictive Impact (CPI) was also used for comparison in a data-focused experiment.
Metrics Used To Evaluate Quality Of Explanations
To evaluate quality of explanations several metrics were considered such as sensitivity metric which expressed an expectation that substantial changes in a model's decision logic would be reflected in its explanations; fidelity or faithfulness which was used in conjunction with a surrogate model to measure agreement between original and surrogate models; accuracy of random forest classifier on Diabetes dataset which was 0.97 AU C; graphical summary of generated counterfactuals showed that glucose variable caused significant number swapped labels when used first node in counterfactual path etc..
Conclusion
Overall this evaluation and experimental setup demonstrated how their proposed approach can provide interpretable explanations for model behavior, detect important features within data sets and evaluate quality of explanations provided by various XAI techniques like SHAP & LIME etc..