Explainable Matrix - Visualization for Global and Local Interpretability of Random Forest Classification Ensembles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decades, classification models have proven to be essential machine learning tools given their potential and applicability in various domains. In these years, the north of the majority of the researchers had been to improve quantitative metrics, notwithstanding the lack of information about models' decisions such metrics convey. This paradigm has recently shifted, and strategies beyond tables and numbers to assist in interpreting models' decisions are increasing in importance. Part of this trend, visualization techniques have been extensively used to support classification models' interpretability, with a significant focus on rule-based models. Despite the advances, the existing approaches present limitations in terms of visual scalability, and the visualization of large and complex models, such as the ones produced by the Random Forest (RF) technique, remains a challenge. In this paper, we propose Explainable Matrix (ExMatrix), a novel visualization method for RF interpretability that can handle models with massive quantities of rules. It employs a simple yet powerful matrix-like visual metaphor, where rows are rules, columns are features, and cells are rules predicates, enabling the analysis of entire models and auditing classification results. ExMatrix applicability is confirmed via different examples, showing how it can be used in practice to promote RF models interpretability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it