Philipp Schmidt

Tristan Cinquin, Tammo Rukat, Philipp Schmidt et al.

Gradient boosting machines (GBMs) based on decision trees consistently demonstrate state-of-the-art results on regression and classification tasks with tabular data, often outperforming deep neural networks. However, these models do not provide well-calibrated predictive uncertainties, which prevents their use for decision making in high-risk applications. The Bayesian treatment is known to improve predictive uncertainty calibration, but previously proposed Bayesian GBM methods are either computationally expensive, or resort to crude approximations. Variational inference is often used to implement Bayesian neural networks, but is difficult to apply to GBMs, because the decision trees used as weak learners are non-differentiable. In this paper, we propose to implement Bayesian GBMs using variational inference with soft decision trees, a fully differentiable alternative to standard decision trees introduced by Irsoy et al. Our experiments demonstrate that variational soft trees and variational soft GBMs provide useful uncertainty estimates, while retaining good predictive performance. The proposed models show higher test likelihoods when compared to the state-of-the-art Bayesian GBMs in 7/10 tabular regression datasets and improved out-of-distribution detection in 5/10 datasets.

Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Philipp Schmidt, Michele Donini et al.

The large size and complex decision mechanisms of state-of-the-art text classifiers make it difficult for humans to understand their predictions, leading to a potential lack of trust by the users. These issues have led to the adoption of methods like SHAP and Integrated Gradients to explain classification decisions by assigning importance scores to input tokens. However, prior work, using different randomization tests, has shown that interpretations generated by these methods may not be robust. For instance, models making the same predictions on the test set may still lead to different feature importance rankings. In order to address the lack of robustness of token-based interpretability, we explore explanations at higher semantic levels like sentences. We use computational metrics and human subject studies to compare the quality of sentence-based interpretations against token-based ones. Our experiments show that higher-level feature attributions offer several advantages: 1) they are more robust as measured by the randomization tests, 2) they lead to lower variability when using approximation-based methods like SHAP, and 3) they are more intelligible to humans in situations where the linguistic coherence resides at a higher granularity level. Based on these findings, we show that token-based interpretability, while being a convenient first choice given the input interfaces of the ML models, is not the most effective one in all situations.