NWO-RATE meeting
July 5th
Dennis Collaris
PhD Algorithms & Visualization
Predictive model interpretability
MY RESEARCH
Black box model
75% risk!
Black box
model
Domain expert
Explanation
Aha!
But why?
Data
Explainer
Explanations for
Fraud Detection
GRADUATION
Real world scenario
Data
- Lots of missing values
Model
- 100 Random Forest
- 500 trees each
- ~25 decisions per tree
- 1.312.471 models total!
×
OOB error: 27.7%
My solution
Feature contribution
[1] Palczewska, Anna et. al. Interpreting random forest classification models using a feature contribution method. In Integration of reusable systems, pp. 193–218. Springer, 2014.
0 1 2. 3 x
y
2
1
7 : 7
6 : 2
...
\(Y_{mean}\) = 0.5
\(Y_{mean}\) = 0.75
\(LI_{X}\) = 0.25
Contribution per Decision Tree:
\(FC_{i,t}^f = \sum_{N \in R_{i,t}} LI_f^N\)
Contribution per Random Forest:
\(FC_i^f = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T FC_{i,t}^f\)
X < 2.5
Partial dependence
[2] Friedman, Jerome H. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29(5): pp. 1189–1232, 2001.
300
250
200
150
100
50
1
0%
100%
200
100
0
Duration illness
Fraud?
Fraud (55%)
Non-fraud (35%)
| Company | ABC Inc |
| Employees | 5 |
| Duration illness | days |
| ... | ... |
Fraud (65%)
Fraud (90%)
Non-fraud (45%)
Non-fraud (40%)
Non-fraud (25%)
Local rule extraction
[3] Ribeiro, Marco Tulio et. al. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD, pp. 1135–1144. ACM, 2016.
[4] Deng, Houtao. Interpreting tree ensembles with inTrees. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5456 , pp. 1–18, 2014.
0 1 2. 3 x
y
2
1
Fraud team happy! 🎉
Paper accepted for:
Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning
@
What is a good explanation?
FUTURE PLANS
OVERVIEW
My research
Graduation
Future plans
NWO-RATE meeting July 5th-export
By iamdecode
