Formal XAI (explainable AI) is a growing area that focuses on computing explanations with mathematical guarantees for the decisions made by ML models. Inside formal XAI, one of the most studied cases is that of explaining the choices taken by decision trees, as they are traditionally deemed as one of the most interpretable classes of models. Recent work has focused on studying the computation of sufficient reasons, a kind of explanation in which given a decision tree and an instance, one explains the decision () by providing a subset of the features of such that for any other instance compatible with, it holds that () = (), intuitively meaning that the features in are already enough to fully justify the classification of by. It has been argued, however, that sufficient reasons constitute a restrictive notion of explanation. For such a reason, the community has started to study their probabilistic counterpart, in which one requires that the probability of () = () must be at least some value (0, 1], where is a random instance that is compatible with. Our paper settles the computational complexity of -sufficient-reasons over decision trees, showing that both (1) finding -sufficient-reasons that are minimal in size, and (2) finding -sufficient-reasons that are minimal inclusion-wise, do not admit polynomial-time algorithms (unless PTIME = NP). This is in stark contrast with the deterministic case (= 1) where inclusion-wise minimal sufficient-reasons are easy to compute. By doing this, we answer two open problems originally raised by Izza et al., and extend the hardness of explanations for Boolean circuits presented by Wäldchen et al. to the more restricted case of decision trees. On the positive side, we identify structural restrictions of decision trees that make the problem tractable, and show how SAT solvers might be able to tackle these problems in practical settings.

Procrastination, the irrational delay of tasks, is a common occurrence in online learning. Potential negative consequences include higher risk of drop-outs, increased stress, and reduced mood. Due to the rise of learning management systems and learning analytics, indicators of such behavior can be detected, enabling predictions of future procrastination and other dilatory behavior. However, research focusing on such predictions is scarce. Moreover, studies involving different types of predictors and comparisons between the predictive performance of various methods are virtually non-existent. In this study, we aim to fill these research gaps by analyzing the performance of multiple machine learning algorithms when predicting the delayed or timely submission of online assignments in a higher education setting with two categories of predictors: subjective, questionnaire-based variables and objective, log-data based indicators extracted from a learning management system. The results show that models with objective predictors consistently outperform models with subjective predictors, and a combination of both variable types perform slightly better. For each of these three options, a different approach prevailed (Gradient Boosting Machines for the subjective, Bayesian multilevel models for the objective, and Random Forest for the combined predictors). We conclude that careful attention should be paid to the selection of predictors and algorithms before implementing such models in learning management systems.

The authors recently gave an $n^{O(\log\log n)}$ time membership query algorithm for properly learning decision trees under the uniform distribution (Blanc et al., 2021). The previous fastest algorithm for this problem ran in $n^{O(\log n)}$ time, a consequence of Ehrenfeucht and Haussler (1989)'s classic algorithm for the distribution-free setting. In this article we highlight the natural open problem of obtaining a polynomial-time algorithm, discuss possible avenues towards obtaining it, and state intermediate milestones that we believe are of independent interest.

Zsolt Nagy is a software engineer, manager, tech lead, and mentor specializing in the development of maintainable web applications with cutting edge technologies since 2010. As a software engineer, Zsolt continuously challenges himself to stick to the highest possible standards. Zsolt puts extra effort into building a T-shaped profile in leadership and software engineering. You can read more about Zsolt's specializations by visiting his blogs. His tech blog (zsoltnagy.eu) is on improving your JavaScript skills by solving tech interviewing questions and developing real world web applications that you can monetize or display in your portfolio.

In this course, you'll be learning various supervised ML algorithms and prediction tasks applied to different data. You'll learn when to use which model and why, and how to improve the model performances. We will cover models such as linear and logistic regression, KNN, Decision trees and ensembling methods such as Random Forest and Boosting, kernel methods such as SVM. Prior coding or scripting knowledge is required. We will be utilizing Python extensively throughout the course.

I will be using Keras and TensorFlow to train a deep neural network to predict the grade using 2 hidden layers, mean squared error loss, and an RMSprop optimizer. Let's graph the error and the loss during training and evaluate the model We are getting a 0.69 mean absolute error with this approach. We also need to save the model to deploy it in an API. Since I am using google Colab I can easily save it to google drive. Initialize a random forest with 100 decision trees and train it on the same data.

Low dimensional and computationally less expensive Reduced-Order Models (ROMs) have been widely used to capture the dominant behaviors of high-dimensional systems. A ROM can be obtained, using the well-known Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD), by projecting the full-order model to a subspace spanned by modal basis modes which are learned from experimental, simulated or observational data, i.e., training data. However, the optimal basis can change with the parameter settings. When a ROM, constructed using the POD basis obtained from training data, is applied to new parameter settings, the model often lacks robustness against the change of parameters in design, control, and other real-time operation problems. This paper proposes to use regression trees on Grassmann Manifold to learn the mapping between parameters and POD bases that span the low-dimensional subspaces onto which full-order models are projected. Motivated by the fact that a subspace spanned by a POD basis can be viewed as a point in the Grassmann manifold, we propose to grow a tree by repeatedly splitting the tree node to maximize the Riemannian distance between the two subspaces spanned by the predicted POD bases on the left and right daughter nodes. Five numerical examples are presented to comprehensively demonstrate the performance of the proposed method, and compare the proposed tree-based method to the existing interpolation method for POD basis and the use of global POD basis. The results show that the proposed tree-based method is capable of establishing the mapping between parameters and POD bases, and thus adapt ROMs for new parameters.

Hummingbird compiles trained ML models into tensor computation for faster inference. - GitHub - microsoft/hummingbird: Hummingbird compiles trained ML models into tensor computation for faster inference.

Will accept BS in related field with minimum of 5 years of experience. A drive to learn and master new technologies and techniques. Excellent written and verbal communication skills for coordinating across teams. Green card or US citizen required. Will accept BS in related field with minimum of 5 years of experience.

The services that will work best for you will depend on your specific use case and your team's level of expertise. Because it takes a lot of effort and ML expertise to build and maintain high quality ML models, a general rule of thumb is to use pretrained models or AI solutions whenever possible -- that is, when they fit your use case. If your data is structured, and it's in BigQuery, and your users are already comfortable with SQL, then choose BigQuery ML. If you realize that your use case requires writing your own model code, then use custom training options in Vertex AI. Let's look at your options in some more detail.