Subgroup mining for performance analysis of regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning algorithms have shown several advantages compared to humans, namely in terms of the scale of data that can be analysed, delivering high speed and precision. However, it is not always possible to understand how algorithms work. As a result of the complexity of some algorithms, users started to feel the need to ask for explanations, boosting the relevance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence. This field aims to explain and interpret models with the use of specific analytical methods that usually analyse how their predicted values and/or errors behave. While prediction analysis is widely studied, performance analysis has limitations for regression models. This paper proposes a rule‐based approach, Error Distribution Rules (EDRs), to uncover atypical error regions, while considering multivariate feature interactions without size restrictions. Extracting EDRs is a form of subgroup mining. EDRs are model agnostic and a drill‐down technique to evaluate regression models, which consider multivariate interactions between predictors. EDRs uncover regions of the input space with deviating performance providing an interpretable description of these regions. They can be regarded as a complementary tool to the standard reporting of the expected average predictive performance. Moreover, by providing interpretable descriptions of these specific regions, EDRs allow end users to understand the dangers of using regression tools for some specific cases that fall on these regions, thaṯ is, they improve the accountability of models. The performance of several models from different problems was studied, showing that our proposal allows the analysis of many situations and direct model comparison. In order to facilitate the examination of rules, two visualization tools based on boxplots and density plots were implemented. A network visualization tool is also provided to rapidly check interactions of every feature condition. An additional tool is provided by using a grid of boxplots, where comparison between quartiles of every distribution with a reference is performed. Based on this comparison, an extrapolation of counterfactual examples to regression was also implemented. A set of examples is described, including a setting where regression models performance is compared in detail using EDRs. Specifically, the error difference between two models in a dataset is studied by deriving rules highlighting regions of the input space where model performance difference is unexpected. The application of visual tools is illustrated using EDRs examples derived from public available datasets. Also, case studies illustrating the specialization of subgroups, identification of counter factual subgroups and detecting unanticipated complex models are presented. This paper extends the state of the art by providing a method to derive explanations for model performance instead of explanations for model predictions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".