How Interpretable and Trustworthy are GAMs?
원문 초록
Generalized additive models (GAMs) have become a leading modelclass for interpretable machine learning. However, there are many algorithms for training GAMs, and these can learn different or even contradictory models, while being equally accurate. Which GAM should we trust? In this paper, we quantitatively and qualitatively investigate a variety of GAM algorithms on real and simulated datasets. We find that GAMs with high feature sparsity (only using afew variables to make predictions) can miss patterns in the data and be unfair to rare subpopulations. Our results suggest that inductive bias plays a crucial role in what interpretable models learn and that tree-based GAMs represent the best balance of sparsity, fidelity and accuracy and thus appear to be the most trustworthy GAM.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
How Your Location Relates to Health: Variable Importance and Interpretable Machine Learning for Environmental and Sociodemographic Data
Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models
The Most Important Features in Generalized Additive Models Might Be Groups of Features
Navigating the Rashomon Effect: How Personalization Can Help Adjust Interpretable Machine Learning Models to Individual Users
GAMformer: In-Context Learning for Generalized Additive Models
Learning Robust Stereo Matching in the Wild with Selective Mixture-of-Experts
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.