Explaining inference queries with bayesian optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obtaining an explanation for an SQL query result can enrich the analysis experience, reveal data errors, and provide deeper insight into the data. Inference query explanation seeks to explain unexpected aggregate query results on inference data; such queries are challenging to explain because an explanation may need to be derived from the source, training, or inference data in an ML pipeline. In this paper, we model an objective function as a black-box function and propose BOExplain, a novel framework for explaining inference queries using Bayesian optimization (BO). An explanation is a predicate defining the input tuples that should be removed so that the query result of interest is significantly affected. BO --- a technique for finding the global optimum of a black-box function --- is used to find the best predicate. We develop two new techniques (individual contribution encoding and warm start) to handle categorical variables. We perform experiments showing that the predicates found by BOExplain have a higher degree of explanation compared to those found by the state-of-the-art query explanation engines. We also show that BOExplain is effective at deriving explanations for inference queries from source and training data on a variety of real-world datasets. BOExplain is open-sourced as a Python package at https://github.com/sfu-db/BOExplain.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".