3.8 Proceedings Paper

Local Ranking Explanation for Genetic Programming Evolved Routing Policies for Uncertain Capacitated Arc Routing Problems

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3512290.3528723

关键词

Genetic Programming; Hyper-Heuristic; Uncertain Capacitated Arc Routing Problem; Local explanation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a Local Ranking Explanation (LRE) method for explaining GP-evolved routing policies for the Uncertain Capacitated Arc Routing Problem (UCARP). Experimental results show that this method can provide more interpretable linear models to explain the routing policies in most decision situations.
The Uncertain Capacitated Arc Routing Problem (UCARP) is a well-known combinatorial optimisation problem that has many real-world applications. Genetic Programming is usually utilised to handle UCARP by evolving effective routing policies, which can respond to the uncertain environment in real-time. Previous studies mainly focus on the effectiveness of the routing policies but ignore the interpretability. In this paper, we focus on post-hoc interpretability, which explains a pre-trained complex routing policy. Unlike the existing explanation methods for classification/regression models, the behaviour of a routing policy is characterised as a ranking process rather than predicting a single output. To address this issue, this paper proposes a Local Ranking Explanation (LRE) method for GP-evolved routing policies for UCARP. Given a UCARP decision situation, LRE trains a linear model that gives the same ranks of the candidate tasks as those of the explained routing policy. The experimental results demonstrate that LRE can obtain more interpretable linear models that have highly correlated and consistent behaviours with the original routing policy in most decision situations. By analysing coefficients and attribute importance of the linear model, we managed to provide a local explanation of the original routing policy in a decision situation.

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

3.8
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