Accelerating the Global Aggregation of Local Explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local explanation methods highlight the input tokens that have a considerable impact on the outcome of classifying the document at hand. For example, the Anchor algorithm applies a statistical analysis of the sensitivity of the classifier to changes in the token. Aggregating local explanations over a dataset provides a global explanation of the model. Such aggregation aims to detect words with the most impact, giving valuable insights about the model, like what it has learned in training and which adversarial examples expose its weaknesses. However, standard aggregation methods bear a high computational cost: a naive implementation applies a costly algorithm to each token of each document, and hence, it is infeasible for a simple user running in the scope of a short analysis session. We devise techniques for accelerating the global aggregation of the Anchor algorithm. Specifically, our goal is to compute a set of top-k words with the highest global impact according to different aggregation functions. Some of our techniques are lossless and some are lossy. We show that for a very mild loss of quality, we are able to accelerate the computation by up to 30 times, reducing the computation from hours to minutes. We also devise and study a probabilistic model that accounts for noise in the Anchor algorithm and diminishes the bias toward words that are frequent yet low in impact.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".