RESUMEN
With the increasing use of black-box Machine Learning (ML) techniques in critical applications, there is a growing demand for methods that can provide transparency and accountability for model predictions. As a result, a large number of local explainability methods for black-box models have been developed and popularized. However, machine learning explanations are still hard to evaluate and compare due to the high dimensionality, heterogeneous representations, varying scales, and stochastic nature of some of these methods. Topological Data Analysis (TDA) can be an effective method in this domain since it can be used to transform attributions into uniform graph representations, providing a common ground for comparison across different explanation methods. We present a novel topology-driven visual analytics tool, Mountaineer, that allows ML practitioners to interactively analyze and compare these representations by linking the topological graphs back to the original data distribution, model predictions, and feature attributions. Mountaineer facilitates rapid and iterative exploration of ML explanations, enabling experts to gain deeper insights into the explanation techniques, understand the underlying data distributions, and thus reach well-founded conclusions about model behavior. Furthermore, we demonstrate the utility of Mountaineer through two case studies using real-world data. In the first, we show how Mountaineer enabled us to compare black-box ML explanations and discern regions of and causes of disagreements between different explanations. In the second, we demonstrate how the tool can be used to compare and understand ML models themselves. Finally, we conducted interviews with three industry experts to help us evaluate our work.
RESUMEN
Analyzing classification model performance is a crucial task for machine learning practitioners. While practitioners often use count-based metrics derived from confusion matrices, like accuracy, many applications, such as weather prediction, sports betting, or patient risk prediction, rely on a classifier's predicted probabilities rather than predicted labels. In these instances, practitioners are concerned with producing a calibrated model, that is, one which outputs probabilities that reflect those of the true distribution. Model calibration is often analyzed visually, through static reliability diagrams, however, the traditional calibration visualization may suffer from a variety of drawbacks due to the strong aggregations it necessitates. Furthermore, count-based approaches are unable to sufficiently analyze model calibration. We present Calibrate, an interactive reliability diagram that addresses the aforementioned issues. Calibrate constructs a reliability diagram that is resistant to drawbacks in traditional approaches, and allows for interactive subgroup analysis and instance-level inspection. We demonstrate the utility of Calibrate through use cases on both real-world and synthetic data. We further validate Calibrate by presenting the results of a think-aloud experiment with data scientists who routinely analyze model calibration.