André Carrington

h-index7
2papers
639citations

2 Papers

11.3MEMar 21, 2021
Deep ROC Analysis and AUC as Balanced Average Accuracy to Improve Model Selection, Understanding and Interpretation

André M. Carrington, Douglas G. Manuel, Paul W. Fieguth et al.

Optimal performance is critical for decision-making tasks from medicine to autonomous driving, however common performance measures may be too general or too specific. For binary classifiers, diagnostic tests or prognosis at a timepoint, measures such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, or the area under the precision recall curve, are too general because they include unrealistic decision thresholds. On the other hand, measures such as accuracy, sensitivity or the F1 score are measures at a single threshold that reflect an individual single probability or predicted risk, rather than a range of individuals or risk. We propose a method in between, deep ROC analysis, that examines groups of probabilities or predicted risks for more insightful analysis. We translate esoteric measures into familiar terms: AUC and the normalized concordant partial AUC are balanced average accuracy (a new finding); the normalized partial AUC is average sensitivity; and the normalized horizontal partial AUC is average specificity. Along with post-test measures, we provide a method that can improve model selection in some cases and provide interpretation and assurance for patients in each risk group. We demonstrate deep ROC analysis in two case studies and provide a toolkit in Python.

24.3AIDec 19, 2019
Measuring the Quality of Explanations: The System Causability Scale (SCS). Comparing Human and Machine Explanations

Andreas Holzinger, André Carrington, Heimo Müller

Recent success in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) allow problem solving automatically without any human intervention. Autonomous approaches can be very convenient. However, in certain domains, e.g., in the medical domain, it is necessary to enable a domain expert to understand, why an algorithm came up with a certain result. Consequently, the field of Explainable AI (xAI) rapidly gained interest worldwide in various domains, particularly in medicine. Explainable AI studies transparency and traceability of opaque AI/ML and there are already a huge variety of methods. For example with layer-wise relevance propagation relevant parts of inputs to, and representations in, a neural network which caused a result, can be highlighted. This is a first important step to ensure that end users, e.g., medical professionals, assume responsibility for decision making with AI/ML and of interest to professionals and regulators. Interactive ML adds the component of human expertise to AI/ML processes by enabling them to re-enact and retrace AI/ML results, e.g. let them check it for plausibility. This requires new human-AI interfaces for explainable AI. In order to build effective and efficient interactive human-AI interfaces we have to deal with the question of how to evaluate the quality of explanations given by an explainable AI system. In this paper we introduce our System Causability Scale (SCS) to measure the quality of explanations. It is based on our notion of Causability (Holzinger et al., 2019) combined with concepts adapted from a widely accepted usability scale.