I have a dataset with 4 categorical features (Cholesterol, Systolic Blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and smoking rate). I use a decision tree classifier to find the probability of stroke. I am trying to verify my understanding of the splitting procedure done by Python Sklearn. Since it is a binary tree, there are three possible ways to split the first feature which is either to group categories {0 and 1 to a leaf, 2 to another leaf} or {0 and 2, 1}, or {0, 1 and 2}. What I know (please correct me here) is that the chosen split is the one with the highest information gain.

Relational properties, e.g., the connectivity structure of nodes in a distributed system, have many applications in software design and analysis. However, such properties often have to be written manually, which can be costly and error-prone. This paper introduces the MCML approach for empirically studying the learnability of a key class of such properties that can be expressed in the well-known software design language Alloy. A key novelty of MCML is quantification of the performance of and semantic differences among trained machine learning (ML) models, specifically decision trees, with respect to entire input spaces (up to a bound on the input size), and not just for given training and test datasets (as is the common practice). MCML reduces the quantification problems to the classic complexity theory problem of model counting, and employs state-of-the-art approximate and exact model counters for high efficiency. The results show that relatively simple ML models can achieve surprisingly high performance (accuracy and F1 score) at learning relational properties when evaluated in the common setting of using training and test datasets -- even when the training dataset is much smaller than the test dataset -- indicating the seeming simplicity of learning these properties. However, the use of MCML metrics based on model counting shows that the performance can degrade substantially when tested against the whole (bounded) input space, indicating the high complexity of precisely learning these properties, and the usefulness of model counting in quantifying the true accuracy.

In the paper, we present the ADD-Lib, our efficient and easy to use framework for Algebraic Decision Diagrams (ADDs). The focus of the ADD-Lib is not so much on its efficient implementation of individual operations, which are taken by other established ADD frameworks, but its ease and flexibility, which arise at two levels: the level of individual ADD-tools, which come with a dedicated user-friendly web-based graphical user interface, and at the meta level, where such tools are specified. Both levels are described in the paper: the meta level by explaining how we can construct an ADD-tool tailored for Random Forest refinement and evaluation, and the accordingly generated Web-based domain-specific tool, which we also provide as an artifact for cooperative experimentation. In particular, the artifact allows readers to combine a given Random Forest with their own ADDs regarded as expert knowledge and to experience the corresponding effect.

Random Forests are one of the most popular classifiers in machine learning. The larger they are, the more precise is the outcome of their predictions. However, this comes at a cost: their running time for classification grows linearly with the number of trees, i.e. the size of the forest. In this paper, we propose a method to aggregate large Random Forests into a single, semantically equivalent decision diagram. Our experiments on various popular datasets show speed-ups of several orders of magnitude, while, at the same time, also significantly reducing the size of the required data structure.

Predictive process analytics has recently gained significant attention, and yet its successful adoption in organisations relies on how well users can trust the predictions of the underlying machine learning algorithms that are often applied and recognised as a `black-box'. Without understanding the rationale of the black-box machinery, there will be a lack of trust in the predictions, a reluctance to use the predictions, and in the worse case, consequences of an incorrect decision based on the prediction. In this paper, we emphasise the importance of interpreting the predictive models in addition to the evaluation using conventional metrics, such as accuracy, in the context of predictive process monitoring. We review existing studies on business process monitoring benchmarks for predicting process outcomes and remaining time. We derive explanations that present the behaviour of the entire predictive model as well as explanations describing a particular prediction. These explanations are used to reveal data leakages, assess the interpretability of features used by the model, and the degree of the use of process knowledge in the existing benchmark models. Findings from this exploratory study motivate the need to incorporate interpretability in predictive process analytics.

Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs) are a standard inspection technique for machine learning models. This post will describe both techniques, and explain why the fast way is… well, faster. We will also see that they are not always equivalent. We will briefly describe partial dependence functions. For a more thorough introduction to PDPs, you can refer to the Bible, or to the Interpretable Machine Learning book.

To provide proactive fault tolerance for modern cloud data centers, extensive studies have proposed machine learning (ML) approaches to predict imminent disk failures for early remedy and evaluated their approaches directly on public datasets (e.g., Backblaze SMART logs). However, in real-world production environments, the data quality is imperfect (e.g., inaccurate labeling, missing data samples, and complex failure types), thereby degrading the prediction accuracy. We present RODMAN, a robust data preprocessing pipeline that refines data samples before feeding them into ML models. We start with a large-scale trace-driven study of over three million disks from Alibaba Cloud's data centers, and motivate the practical challenges in ML-based disk failure prediction. We then design RODMAN with three data preprocessing echniques, namely failure-type filtering, spline-based data filling, and automated pre-failure backtracking, that are applicable for general ML models. Evaluation on both the Alibaba and Backblaze datasets shows that RODMAN improves the prediction accuracy compared to without data preprocessing under various settings.

We tackle the problem of building explainable recommendation systems that are based on a per-user decision tree, with decision rules that are based on single attribute values. We build the trees by applying learned regression functions to obtain the decision rules as well as the values at the leaf nodes. The regression functions receive as input the embedding of the user's training set, as well as the embedding of the samples that arrive at the current node. The embedding and the regressors are learned end-to-end with a loss that encourages the decision rules to be sparse. By applying our method, we obtain a collaborative filtering solution that provides a direct explanation to every rating it provides. With regards to accuracy, it is competitive with other algorithms. However, as expected, explainability comes at a cost and the accuracy is typically slightly lower than the state of the art result reported in the literature.

Finland, in the spirit of Norway and Denmark, introduced ranking system for academic publication channels (referring to scientific journals, conference series, book publishers etc.) called as Jufo (i.e. "Julkaisufoorumi" in Finnish, "Publication Forum" in English) in 2010, together with the renewed university legislation. The ranking of a publication channel, ranging from 0 (non-peer- reviewed) to 3 (most distinguished academic publication forums), is decided by a specially nominated panel of a particular scientific discipline. These panels decide the rankings based on their academic expertise in regular meetings. Because the rankings are directly linked to the allocated funding of the universities, there has been and is a lot of discussion about the fairness and objectivity of the ranks. A versatile analysis of the 2015 Jufo-rankings was done in [10]. There, by using association rule mining, decision trees, and confusion matrices with respect to Norwegian and Danish ranks, it was shown that most of the expert-based rankings could be predicted and explained with machine learning methods. Moreover, it was found out that those publication channels, for which the Finnish expert-based rank is higher than the estimated one, are characterized by higher publication activity or recent upgrade of the rank. Hence, the outcomes of the system, the publication ranks, need to be assessed and evaluated regularly and rigorously. 1

Anton Akusok 1, Emil Eirola 1, Kaj-Mikael Bj ork 2 Amaury Lendasse 3, 4 1 Arcada University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland 2 Risklab at Arcada UAS, Helsinki, Finland 3 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA 4 The Iowa Informatics Initiative, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA Abstract The paper proposes a new variant of a decision tree, called an Extreme Learning Tree. It consists of an extremely random tree with nonlinear data transformation, and a linear observer that provides predictions based on the leaf index where the data samples fall. The proposed method outperforms linear models on a benchmark dataset, and may be a building block for a future variant of Random Forest. 1 Introduction Randomized methods are a recent trend in practical machine learning [1]. They enable the high performance of complex nonlinear methods without the high computational cost of their optimization. Current most prominent examples are randomized neural networks, in both feed-forward [2] and recurrent [3] forms. For the latter, the randomized approach provided an efficient training method for the first time, and enabled achieving state-of-the-art performance in multiple areas [4].