Lucas Cardoso

José Ribeiro, Lucas Cardoso, Raíssa Silva et al.

In recent years, XAI researchers have been formalizing proposals and developing new methods to explain black box models, with no general consensus in the community on which method to use to explain these models, with this choice being almost directly linked to the popularity of a specific method. Methods such as Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap and Skater emerged with the proposal to explain black box models through global rankings of feature relevance, which based on different methodologies, generate global explanations that indicate how the model's inputs explain its predictions. In this context, 41 datasets, 4 tree-ensemble algorithms (Light Gradient Boosting, CatBoost, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting), and 6 XAI methods were used to support the launch of a new XAI method, called eXirt, based on Item Response Theory - IRT and aimed at tree-ensemble black box models that use tabular data referring to binary classification problems. In the first set of analyses, the 164 global feature relevance ranks of the eXirt were compared with 984 ranks of the other XAI methods present in the literature, seeking to highlight their similarities and differences. In a second analysis, exclusive explanations of the eXirt based on Explanation-by-example were presented that help in understanding the model trust. Thus, it was verified that eXirt is able to generate global explanations of tree-ensemble models and also local explanations of instances of models through IRT, showing how this consolidated theory can be used in machine learning in order to obtain explainable and reliable models.

José Ribeiro, Lucas Cardoso, Vitor Santos et al.

Black box models are increasingly being used in the daily lives of human beings living in society. Along with this increase, there has been the emergence of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods aimed at generating additional explanations regarding how the model makes certain predictions. In this sense, methods such as Dalex, Eli5, eXirt, Lofo and Shap emerged as different proposals and methodologies for generating explanations of black box models in an agnostic way. Along with the emergence of these methods, questions arise such as "How Reliable and Stable are XAI Methods?". With the aim of shedding light on this main question, this research creates a pipeline that performs experiments using the diabetes dataset and four different machine learning models (LGBM, MLP, DT and KNN), creating different levels of perturbations of the test data and finally generates explanations from the eXirt method regarding the confidence of the models and also feature relevances ranks from all XAI methods mentioned, in order to measure their stability in the face of perturbations. As a result, it was found that eXirt was able to identify the most reliable models among all those used. It was also found that current XAI methods are sensitive to perturbations, with the exception of one specific method.

Lucas Cardoso, Vitor Santos, José Ribeiro Filho et al.

Robust validation of Machine Learning (ML) models is essential, but traditional data partitioning approaches often ignore the intrinsic quality of each instance. This study proposes the use of Item Response Theory (IRT) parameters to characterize and guide the partitioning of datasets in the model validation stage. The impact of IRT-informed partitioning strategies on the performance of several ML models in four tabular datasets was evaluated. The results obtained demonstrate that IRT reveals an inherent heterogeneity of the instances and highlights the existence of informative subgroups of instances within the same dataset. Based on IRT, balanced partitions were created that consistently help to better understand the tradeoff between bias and variance of the models. In addition, the guessing parameter proved to be a determining factor: training with high-guessing instances can significantly impair model performance and resulted in cases with accuracy below 50%, while other partitions reached more than 70% in the same dataset.

Lucas Cardoso, Vitor Santos, José Ribeiro et al.

Benchmarking is a fundamental practice in machine learning (ML) for comparing the performance of classification algorithms. However, traditional evaluation methods often overlook a critical aspect: the joint consideration of dataset complexity and an algorithm's ability to generalize. Without this dual perspective, assessments may favor models that perform well on easy instances while failing to capture their true robustness. To address this limitation, this study introduces a novel evaluation methodology that combines Item Response Theory (IRT) with the Glicko-2 rating system, originally developed to measure player strength in competitive games. IRT assesses classifier ability based on performance over difficult instances, while Glicko-2 updates performance metrics - such as rating, deviation, and volatility - via simulated tournaments between classifiers. This combined approach provides a fairer and more nuanced measure of algorithm capability. A case study using the OpenML-CC18 benchmark showed that only 15% of the datasets are truly challenging and that a reduced subset with 50% of the original datasets offers comparable evaluation power. Among the algorithms tested, Random Forest achieved the highest ability score. The results highlight the importance of improving benchmark design by focusing on dataset quality and adopting evaluation strategies that reflect both difficulty and classifier proficiency.

José Ribeiro, Raíssa Silva, Lucas Cardoso et al.

Strategies based on Explainable Artificial Intelligence - XAI have emerged in computing to promote a better understanding of predictions made by black box models. Most XAI measures used today explain these types of models, generating attribute rankings aimed at explaining the model, that is, the analysis of Attribute Importance of Model. There is no consensus on which XAI measure generates an overall explainability rank. For this reason, several proposals for tools have emerged (Ciu, Dalex, Eli5, Lofo, Shap and Skater). An experimental benchmark of explainable AI techniques capable of producing global explainability ranks based on tabular data related to different problems and ensemble models are presented herein. Seeking to answer questions such as "Are the explanations generated by the different measures the same, similar or different?" and "How does data complexity play along model explainability?" The results from the construction of 82 computational models and 592 ranks shed some light on the other side of the problem of explainability: dataset complexity!