Advertisement

Efficient Shapley Explanation for Features Importance Estimation Under Uncertainty

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12261)

Abstract

Complex deep learning models have shown their impressive power in analyzing high-dimensional medical image data. To increase the trust of applying deep learning models in medical field, it is essential to understand why a particular prediction was reached. Data feature importance estimation is an important approach to understand both the model and the underlying properties of data. Shapley value explanation (SHAP) is a technique to fairly evaluate input feature importance of a given model. However, the existing SHAP-based explanation works have limitations such as 1) computational complexity, which hinders their applications on high-dimensional medical image data; 2) being sensitive to noise, which can lead to serious errors. Therefore, we propose an uncertainty estimation method for the feature importance results calculated by SHAP. Then we theoretically justify the methods under a Shapley value framework. Finally we evaluate our methods on MNIST and a public neuroimaging dataset. We show the potential of our method to discover disease related biomarkers from neuroimaging data.

Supplementary material

505204_1_En_77_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (438 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 437 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Simonyan, K., et al.: Deep inside convolutional networks: visualising image classification models and saliency maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034 (2013)
  2. 2.
    Sundararajan, M., et al.: Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 70, pp. 3319–3328. JMLR. org (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montavon, G., et al.: Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digit. Signal Proc. 73, 1–15 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shrikumar, A., et al.: Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 70, pp. 3145–3153. JMLR. org (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ribeiro, M.T., et al.: “why should i trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1135–1144 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.-I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 4765–4774 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwab, P., Hlavacs, H.: Capturing the essence: towards the automated generation of transparent behavior models. In: Eleventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shapley, L.S.: A value for N-person games. Contrib. Theory Games 2(28), 307–317 (1953)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kindermans, P.-J., et al.: The (un)reliability of saliency methods. In: Samek, W., Montavon, G., Vedaldi, A., Hansen, L.K., Müller, K.-R. (eds.) Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11700, pp. 267–280. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fen, H., et al.: Why should you trust my interpretation? Understanding uncertainty in lime predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12991 (2019)
  11. 11.
    Adebayo, J., et al.: Sanity checks for saliency maps. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 9505–9515 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    LeCun, Y., et al.: Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Springenberg, J.T., et al.: Striving for simplicity: the all convolutional net. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6806 (2014)
  14. 14.
    Di Martino, A., et al.: The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism. Mol. Psychiatry 19(6), 659 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldani, A.A., et al.: Biomarkers in autism. Front. Psychiatry 5, 100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagarajan, R., et al.: Reduced MeCP2 expression is frequent in autism frontal cortex and correlates with aberrant MECP2 promoter methylation. Epigenetics 1(4), 172–182 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watanabe, T., et al.: Mitigation of sociocommunicational deficits of autism through oxytocin-induced recovery of medial prefrontal activity: a randomized trial. JAMA Psychiatry 71(2), 166–175 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rivet, T.T., Matson, J.L.: Review of gender differences in core symptomatology in autism spectrum disorders. Res. Autism Spect. Disord. 5(3), 957–976 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halladay, A.K., et al.: Sex and gender differences in autism spectrum disorder: summarizing evidence gaps and identifying emerging areas of priority. Mol. Autism 6(1), 1–5 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomedical EngineeringYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Electrical EngineeringYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Radiology and Biomedical ImagingYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Child Study CenterYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.College of Information Science and Electronic EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations