Why did AI get this one wrong? — Tree-based explanations of machine learning model predictions
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
Increasingly complex learning methods such as boosting, bagging and deep learning have made ML models more accurate, but harder to interpret and explain, culminating in black-box machine learning models. Model developers and users alike are often presented with a trade-off between performance and intelligibility, especially in high-stakes applications like medicine. In the present article we propose a novel methodological approach for generating explanations for the predictions of a generic machine learning model, given a specific instance for which the prediction has been made. The method, named AraucanaXAI, is based on surrogate, locally-fitted classification and regression trees that are used to provide post-hoc explanations of the prediction of a generic machine learning model. Advantages of the proposed XAI approach include superior fidelity to the original model, ability to deal with non-linear decision boundaries, and native support to both classification and regression problems. We provide a packaged, open-source implementation of the AraucanaXAI method and evaluate its behaviour in a number of different settings that are commonly encountered in medical applications of AI. These include potential disagreement between the model prediction and physician's expert opinion and low reliability of the prediction due to data scarcity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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