Random Forest Similarity Maps: A Scalable Visual Representation for Global and Local Interpretation
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
Machine Learning prediction algorithms have made significant contributions in today’s world, leading to increased usage in various domains. However, as ML algorithms surge, the need for transparent and interpretable models becomes essential. Visual representations have shown to be instrumental in addressing such an issue, allowing users to grasp models’ inner workings. Despite their popularity, visualization techniques still present visual scalability limitations, mainly when applied to analyze popular and complex models, such as Random Forests (RF). In this work, we propose Random Forest Similarity Map (RFMap), a scalable interactive visual analytics tool designed to analyze RF ensemble models. RFMap focuses on explaining the inner working mechanism of models through different views describing individual data instance predictions, providing an overview of the entire forest of trees, and highlighting instance input feature values. The interactive nature of RFMap allows users to visually interpret model errors and decisions, establishing the necessary confidence and user trust in RF models and improving performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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