4.7 Article

Interpretable machine learning with an ensemble of gradient boosting machines

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106993

关键词

Interpretable model; XAI; Gradient boosting machine; Decision tree; Ensemble model; Lasso method

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as part of Worldclass Research Center program: Advanced Digital Technologies [075-15-2020-934]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This method proposes a way to interpret black-box models locally and globally based on ensemble gradient boosting machines, using simple decision tree structures and the Lasso method for weight calculation and update. Compared to the neural additive model, it provides a more intuitive and easy-to-train approach.
A method for the local and global interpretation of a black-box model on the basis of the well-known generalized additive models is proposed. It can be viewed as an extension or a modification of the algorithm using the neural additive model. The method is based on using an ensemble of gradient boosting machines (GBMs) such that each GBM is learned on a single feature and produces a shape function of the feature. The ensemble is composed as a weighted sum of separate GBMs resulting a weighted sum of shape functions which form the generalized additive model. GBMs are built in parallel using randomized decision trees of depth 1, which provide a very simple architecture. Weights of GBMs as well as features are computed in each iteration of boosting by using the Lasso method and then updated by means of a specific smoothing procedure. In contrast to the neural additive model, the method provides weights of features in the explicit form, and it is simply trained. A lot of numerical experiments with an algorithm implementing the proposed method on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate its efficiency and properties for local and global interpretation. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据