Understanding imbalanced data: XAI & interpretable ML framework
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
Abstract There is a gap between current methods that explain deep learning models that work on imbalanced image data and the needs of the imbalanced learning community. Existing methods that explain imbalanced data are geared toward binary classification, single layer machine learning models and low dimensional data. Current eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques for vision data mainly focus on mapping predictions of specific instances to inputs, instead of examining global data properties and complexities of entire classes. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that is tailored to modern deep networks, that incorporates large, high dimensional, multi-class datasets, and uncovers data complexities commonly found in imbalanced data. We propose a set of techniques that can be used by both deep learning model users to identify, visualize and understand class prototypes, sub-concepts and outlier instances; and by imbalanced learning algorithm developers to detect features and class exemplars that are key to model performance. The components of our framework can be applied sequentially in their entirety or individually, making it fully flexible to the user’s specific needs ( https://github.com/dd1github/XAI_for_Imbalanced_Learning ).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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