VisRuler: Visual Analytics for Extracting Decision Rules from Bagged and Boosted Decision Trees

Ensemble learning (EL) Zhou2009Ensemble is a well-established area of machine learning (ML) that strives for better performance by merging the predictions from various ML models. Three prominent methods for building ensembles are: Sagi2018Ensemble bagging, Breiman1996Stacked boosting, Freund1996Experiments ; Schapire1990Strength and stacking. Wolpert1992Stacked Bagging requires training many decision trees on separate groups of instances and taking the average of their predictions. Breiman1996Stacked Boosting attaches weak classifiers (e.g., decision stumps or shallow decision trees) sequentially, each improving the predictions made by the previous models. Freund1996Experiments ; Schapire1990Strength Stacking involves fitting many base models from different algorithms on the same data set and using a metamodel to combine their results. Wolpert1992Stacked The common ground between bagging and boosting methods is that they incorporate ML algorithms that produce numerous decision trees, Kingsford2008Decision such as random forest (RF) Breiman2001Random and adaptive boosting/AdaBoost (AB), Freund1999A respectively. The decision paths stemming from bagged or boosted decision trees are the target of the visual analytics (VA) approach proposed in this paper.

The popularity of RF and AB is confirmed by their success in solving typical supervised classification problems, which constitute the majority of problems in the real world. Opitz1999Popular ; Wyner2017Explaining An in-depth study Delgado2014Do that estimates the performances of 179 algorithms of various types Dua2017 concludes that bagged decision trees of RF are better than other (types of) algorithms, such as deep learning approaches. Despite their remarkable predictive power, a crucial concern for algorithms that generate many decision trees is interpretability. Brieman, Breiman2001Statistical for instance, indicates that RF models, while superb predictors, receive a low rating regarding their interpretability. As ML models can provide incorrect predictions, Caruana2015Intelligible ML experts have to check whether the model functions properly. Tam2017An Also, domain experts in critical fields need to understand how a specific prediction has been reached in order to trust in ML. Zhou20182D For example, in medicine, a physician might not rely on a model without explanations of how and why it forms a prediction, since patient lives are at risk. Ribeiro2016Why ; Hastie2001The ; Lakkaraju2016Interpretable Or, in the financial domain, declined decisions for loan applicants require additional transparency with the precise justification of the outcome. Sachan2020An Although both algorithms follow the same concept of growing decision trees, their objectives differ: AB focuses on correcting misclassified training instances, while RF mainly reduces variance to achieve better generalizability. However, this fundamental goal of the former makes it susceptible to noisy cases, Bauer1999Empirical while the latter arguably remains intact. Kotsiantis2007Combining Thus, one research question that remains open is: (RQ1) Given the differences between rules obtained from bagged decision trees and those derived from boosted decision trees, how does their combination lead to potential benefits, regarding interpretability enhancement for decision making?

The interpretation of ML models typically happens either at a global or a local level. Kopitar2019Local Global approaches intend to explain the ML model as a whole, Lipton2018The assisting domain experts in exploring the general impact of each decision and gaining confidence in the produced predictions. On the other hand, local approaches aim to provide case-based reasoning, Du2019Techniques ; Carvalho2019Machine allowing domain experts to review a prediction and trace its decision path in order to conclude if the decision rule, and consequently the prediction, is trustworthy. Weller2019Transparency Nevertheless, comparing numerous alternative decision paths without the support of an intelligent system is a time-consuming and resource-heavy procedure. For example, to scan the list of test instances rapidly and investigate specific instances of interest from multiple perspectives (e.g., outliers and borderline cases) can be crucial. Kim2014The Thus, the whole process can benefit from a fast approach for automatic generation and semi-automatic exploration of reliable decisions with ML experts’ involvement. It should also result in robust decisions, since domain experts are the most suitable for carefully examining and then manually picking sensible decisions according to their prior experience and understanding. One research question that arises from this (possibly under-researched) need for cooperation, starting from the selection of models to the extraction of insightful decisions, is: (RQ2) How can VA tools/systems support the collaboration between ML experts and domain experts?

In this paper, we present VisRuler, a VA tool that addresses the research questions described above by supporting the exploratory combination of decisions from two closely-related ML algorithms (i.e., RF and AB). VisRuler uses validation metrics for picking performant and diverse models and combines the decision paths from bagged and boosted trees to extract insightful and interpretable rules. Our contributions consist of the following:

• •

  a visual analytic workflow for defining a methodical way of evaluating decisions (cf. Figure 2 described in Section System Overview and Use Case);

• •

  a prototype VA tool, called VisRuler, that applies the suggested workflow with coordinated views that support the joint effort between ML experts and domain experts for extracting rules and making decisions, respectively;

• •

  a use case and a usage scenario, applying real-world data, that validate the effectiveness of utilizing both bagged and boosted decision trees at the same time; and

• •

  a user study that showed promising results.

According to a recent survey Streeb2021Task that has extensively analyzed tree- and rule-based classification, several VA systems have been developed for this topic in the InfoVis and VA communities. However, most of these tools do not employ algorithms and measures (except for the accuracy metric) in order to compare model quality. Streeb2021Task This section reviews prior work on the interpretation of bagged and boosted decision trees and the more general tools for tree- and rule-based visualization, comparing them with VisRuler to highlight our tool’s novelty.

In this section we present a quick overview of the general algorithmic steps of (and differences between) the RF and AB algorithms, in order to familiarize potential readers with the techniques involved and to highlight the importance of our tool. For more details, please refer to the extensive literature published on the two algorithms since their seminal works. Freund1999A ; Breiman2001Random

Suppose there are $N$ instances in our training data set. If we consider a binary classification problem, then we will have: ${x}_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, ${y}_{i}\in\{-1,1\}$, where $n$ is the number of features, $x$ is the set of instances with $i=1,2,\dots,N$, and $y$ is the target variable which is either $-1$ oder $1$, designating either class ${C}1$ oder ${C}2$.

Random Forest. This algorithm works in two stages. The first stage involves integrating numerous decision trees to construct the RF, and the second stage involves making predictions for each tree created in the first stage, followed by a majority voting strategy.

The algorithm starts by looping for $m=1$ to $M$, where $M$ is the number of trees/estimators hyperparameter. Then, a bootstrap sample $\mathbb{Z}^{*}$ of size $N$ is drawn from the training data by sampling $N$ times with replacement. Afterwards, a decision tree $T_{m}$ is grown with the bootstrapped data by recursively repeating the following steps for each terminal node of the tree, until specific conditions have been met (e.g., the maximum depth of a tree $d_{\mathrm{max}}$ is achieved). The first step is to form individual decision trees: $n$ features, their number is limited by the maximum number of features hyperparameter, and it is selected at random from the $N$ instances (defined in the previous paragraph). Next, the best split point $p_{v}$ among the $n$ is picked. Finally, the node $v$ is split into two child nodes.

The output is an ensemble of trees $\{T_{m}\}_{1}^{M}$ that can be used to make predictions at a new test instance $k$, as follows. Let $\hat{C}_{m}(k)$ be the class prediction of the $m$th decision tree; the output will be calculated as: $\text{majority\_vote}\{\hat{C}_{m}(k)_{1}^{M}\}$. For a test instance, the decision path that predicts it is followed repeatedly for every decision tree, and the test instance gets assigned to the category that wins the majority votes.

For each $v$ in a decision tree, the $p_{v}$ refers to a feature and different criteria (e.g., the minimum samples in each leaf of a tree $s_{\mathrm{min}}$ is reached) tunable through the hyperparameter settings that are used to split this node to children nodes. The Gini impurity Genuer2010Variable measurement is utilized in our case to pick this $p_{v}$, formulated for each $v$ as follows: $GI(v)=\sum_{c=1}^{C}P_{vc}\cdot(1-P_{vc})$, where $P_{vc}$ is the probability of a certain classification $c$ (in our example ${C}1$ and ${C}2$). Given an input test instance, each decision tree will fall into a root-to-leaf decision path, which leads to its prediction. Every decision path (or simply decision) is constructed by defining a range of minimum and maximum values for each feature extracted from RF and AB grown decision trees. Therefore, for $n$ features, we will have $n\cdot 2$ ranges, i.e., dimensions for projecting the decisions visible in Figure 1(c).

Adaptive Boosting. This algorithm fits successively many decision stumps or even decision trees to the training data, using various weights. The latter occurs only if the maximum depth hyperparameter is set to $>1$. It begins by forecasting the original data set and weighting each observation equally. If the first decision stump’s prediction is inaccurate, the observation that was mistakenly anticipated is given more weight. Because it is an iterative process with a specific improvement step controlled by the learning rate hyperparameter, it will continue to add decision stumps until the number of trees/estimators reaches a limit.

For each instance, AB calculates the weights. Each training example is given a weight to determine its importance in the training data set. When the given weights are substantial, that set of training instances is more likely to influence the training set and vice versa. All training instances will start with the same weight, defined as: $w_{i}=1/N$. The weighted samples always add up to one, and each individual weight’s value will be between 0 and 1.

The algorithm starts by looping for $m=1$ to $M$, fitting a model $G_{m}(x)$ to the training data using weights $w_{i}$. After that, AB uses the method to calculate the real effect of this classifier in categorizing the training instances: $\alpha_{m}=\log((1-\text{err}_{m})/\text{err}_{m})$, where $\text{err}_{m}$ is the total number of misclassifications for that training set divided by the training set size. Therefore, $\alpha_{m}$ represents how influential this stump will be in the final categorization. When a decision stump performs well or has no misclassifications, the error rate is 0 and the $\alpha$ value is relatively significant and positive. The alpha value will be 0 if the stump only classifies half correctly and half erroneously. Finally, the $\alpha$ would have a big negative number if the stump consistently produced misclassified data.

After plugging in the actual values of total error for each stump, the sample weights are updated. The following formula is used to accomplish that: $w_{i}=w_{i-1}\cdot e^{\alpha}$. In detail, the new sample weight will be equal to the old sample weight multiplied by Euler’s number, raised to $\alpha$. As explained in the previous paragraph, the two cases for $\alpha$ are: (a) positive when the predicted and the actual output agree or (b) negative when the predicted output does not agree with the actual class (i.e., the sample is misclassified). In the first case, the sample weight is decreased from what it was before, since the algorithm already performs well. In the second case, the sample weight gets increased so that the same misclassification does not repeat in the next stump. This procedure is followed so that the stumps are dependent on their predecessors. Lastly, the output for AB is the sum of all trees: $G(x)=\pm\bigl{[}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\alpha_{m}G_{m}(x)\bigr{]}$.

Differences. There are two key distinctions between bagging and boosting, which apply for the RF and AB algorithms. First of all, boosting changes the distribution of the training set adaptively based on the performance of previously constructed classifiers, whereas bagging changes the distribution of the training set stochastically. Second, boosting employs a function of a classifier’s performance as a weight for voting, whereas bagging uses equal weight voting. Boosting appears to minimize both bias and variance, unlike bagging, which is primarily for variance reduction. Following the training of a decision stump, the weights of misclassified training examples are raised while the weights of correctly classified training examples are dropped in order to train the following decision stump. Thus, efforts to overcome the bias of the most recently generated weak model by concentrating greater attention on the samples that it misclassified gain traction. Because of its capacity to minimize bias, boosting works particularly effectively with high-bias but low-variance weak models. The fundamental issue with boosting appears to be resilience to noise. Bauer1999Empirical This is to be expected, as noisy cases are more likely to be misclassified, and their weight will rise as a result.

To sum up, for data with little noise, boosting is regarded as being stronger than bagging; nevertheless, bagging algorithms are far more resilient than boosting in noisy environments. Kotsiantis2007Combining To mitigate this problem, using both algorithms to derive decisions is a novel idea we adopt. In the future, we may expand our approach to experiment with any decision-based algorithm (as in prior works Kotsiantis2007CombiningBagging ; Kotsiantis2011Combining ), but in this paper, we chose to combine two already widely-used algorithms (i.e., RF and AB).

In this section, we specify the main design goals (G1–G5) upon which VisRuler (or any other VA system) should base its development regarding scenarios of extracting decision rules from bagging and boosting ensemble algorithms. Afterwards, we report the corresponding analytical tasks (T1–T5) that a user should be capable of performing while he/she obtains assistance and guidance from our proposed system. One important aspect of the design of VisRuler is the need for collaboration between different experts, which we also motivate here.

Motivated by the above design goals and tasks, we have developed VisRuler. Our VA tool is written in Python and JavaScript. More technical details available on GitHub. VisRulerCode

The tool consists of five main interactive visualization panels (Figure 1): (a) models overview (T1), (b) global feature ranking (T2), (c) decisions space (T3), (d) manual decisions (T4), and (e) decisions evaluation (T5). Our proposed workflow is a two-party system with the ML expert on the one side and the domain expert on the other (see Figure 2). The above-mentioned panels of our tool support the experts’ collaborative effort, specifically: (i) the ML expert should select powerful and diverse models from the two separate algorithms based on their performance assessed by validation metrics (Figure 1(a)); (ii) during this phase, the ML expert should choose which features are important for the active models compared to all models (see Figure 1(b)); (iii) in the next exploration phase, both experts should examine which decisions explain the data set globally and decide upon impactful decisions for a specific test instance (cf. Figure 1(c)); (iv) in this same phase, the domain expert should interpret the manual decisions selected in order to gain insights about the models’ decisions—either globally or locally—for a particular test instance (Figure 1(d)); and (v) in the final phase, the domain expert can evaluate the agreement and extract suitable manual decisions while the ML expert should search for new models if the search did not reach a satisfactory level according to the domain expert (Figure 1(e)). Overall, this is an iterative process with a final goal to receive insightful decisions that should be interpretable for all counterparts. Details about the different views within the panels can be found below.

VisRuler incorporates a single workflow for the synchronous co-located collaboration between the ML expert and the domain expert, as depicted in Figure 3. It is a VA system that comprises multiple coordinate views arranged in a single webpage to manage the entire process without any distractions occuring due to the navigation to different tabs. The three phases and five visualization panels are already described in the previous paragraph. Both experts’ usual interactions with the system can be aggregated into seven steps that are followed in the use case explained in this section and the usage scenario in Section Usage Scenario. Most of the time, the active role (cf. orange color in the diagram) is given to the ML expert who is responsible for selecting models (step 1), selecting features (step 2), exploring decisions (step 4), and finally, in step 7, search for new models (ideally based on the domain expert’s feedback). On the other hand, the domain expert often has a more passive role (see teal color in the diagram) since he/she should focus on important features (step 3) and interpret the decision rules (step 5) based on the prior step. But in step 6, the domain expert becomes active because he/she has to decide which manual decisions should be extracted, for example, to be used as input to another tool, or as evidence for his/her diagnosis. The meeting point between both experts is step 4, the exploration of decisions, where the ML expert can control the multiple implemented filtering options (e.g., acceptable impurity level) while the domain expert pinpoints specific decision paths that could be interesting for a detailed manual investigation. Without their continuous communication while they operate the system and observe each other’s actions, gaining deep insights would be very difficult.

The workflow of VisRuler is model-agnostic, as long as rules can be extracted from the ML algorithms. Currently, the implementation uses two popular EL methods: (1) RF and (2) AB (cf. green and blue colors in Figure 2, respectively). This choice was intentional since bagging methods work differently than boosting, as explained in Section Random Forest vs. Adaptive Boosting. Furthermore, each data set is split in a stratified fashion (i.e., keeping the class balance in training/testing split) into 90% of training samples and 10% of testing samples. We also use cross-validation with 3-folds on the training set, and we scan the hyperparameter space for 10 iterations using Random search Bergstra2012Random in each algorithm separately. The common hyperparameters for both ML algorithms we experimented with (and their intervals) are: number of trees/estimators (2–20), maximum depth of a tree (10–25), and minimum samples in each leaf of a tree (1–10). An extra hyperparameter of RF is the maximum number of features to consider when looking for the best split (($\sqrt{number\_of\_features}$)–($number\_of\_features-1$)). AB has the learning rate (0.1–0.4). It is straightforward to adapt those values through the code.

In the following subsections, we explain VisRuler by describing a use case with the World Happiness Report 2019 Helliwell2019World data set obtained from the Kaggle repository. Kaggle2019 This data set contains 156 countries (i.e., instances) ranked according to an index representing how happy the citizens of each country are. The six other variables that could be considered as features are: (1) GDP per capita, (2) social support, (3) healthy life expectancy, (4) freedom to make life choices, (5) generosity, and (6) corruption perception. Because this data set does not contain any categorical class labels, we follow the same approach as in Neto and Paulovich Neto2021Multivariate to discretize the happiness score in three different bins. Hence, we are converting this regression problem into a multi-class classification problem. Salman2012Regression Also in our case, the original variable Score becomes the target variable that our ML models should predict. In detail, the HS-Level-3 class contains 42 countries with happiness scores (HS) ranging from $6.13$ to $7.76$, the HS-Level-2 groups 79 countries from $4.49$ to $6.13$, and the HS-Level-1 class encloses 35 countries from $2.85$ to $4.49$.

In this section, we describe a hypothetical usage scenario with a collaboration of a model developer (Amy, the ML expert) and a bank manager (Joe, the domain expert) who handles granting loans to customers. Joe wants to use VisRuler to improve the evaluation process of loan requests, so he asks Amy to use VisRuler to train ML models based on a data set collected over years of accepting or rejecting loans in the bank. The data set includes 1,000 instances/customers and 9 features/customer information, with 300 rejected (purple) and 700 accepted (orange) applications. This data set is, in reality, a pre-processed version Zhao2019iForest ; Neto2021Explainable of German Credit Data from the UCI ML repository. Dua2017

Exploration and Selection of Algorithms and Models. Following the workflow in Section System Overview and Use Case, Amy loads the data set and checks the score of each model based on the three validation metrics (Figure 1(a)). For the AB algorithm, in blue, all models have a relatively low value for the recall metric, except for AB8. Also, AB7 performs very well for the Accepted class (orange), since the false-negative (FN) line reduces in height compared to all other models. Therefore, she decides to keep only AB7 and AB8. By looking at the confusion plot in Figure 1(a), Amy infers that RF5 is the model with low confusion regarding the Rejected class (purple). She is determined to use RF5 because it carries over only 104 different false-positive (FP) instances compared to RF4 with 114. The top RF models on the right-hand side also caught her attention, with RF9 and RF10 being the best options. She thinks that either of them could do the job, as they appear redundant due to similar confusion and values in both the confusion plot and the line chart (cf. Figure 1(a)). The bar charts below—which highlight the difference in the architectures of these RF models—help her to choose: with only 7 decision trees and 589 decision paths (compared to 18 and 1,483), RF9 is simpler. She concludes that RF9’s simplicity will make Joe’s exploration of decisions more manageable later. Consequently, she deactivates RF10 and continues the feature contribution analysis with RF5, RF9, AB7, and AB8 models.

Examining the Global Contribution of Features. After this new selection of models, Amy observes in Figure 1(b) that most features (except for the last two) are more important now than in the initial state. Ins_perc and Val_sa_st importances drop only by 0.01, implying these features are stable. She suggests Joe to keep all features for now and explore the differences through the decision rules later on. Another interesting insight is that A_bal is the most important feature for the RF models, while the AB models prefer D_cred (see Figure 1(b)). This could indicate that mixing models’ decisions from different algorithms is beneficial.

Explanations through Global Decision Rules. Joe starts his exploration by examining the global decision rules that can help him make accurate decisions for specific cases in the future. He focuses on the \nth12 test instance, which is a customer application reviewed by a colleague, Silvia (cf. usage scenario by Neto and Paulovich Neto2021Explainable ). First, he unchecks limiting the decisions due to the test instance, as illustrated in Figure 8(a). At this point, Amy identifies several decisions that classify only fewer than 20 customers; she thinks: “these are not so generic after all”. Indeed, the larger the number of instances classified by one rule, the more generic and important it is (if the impurity is low). Consequently, they decide to increase the lower boundary of decisions, filtering out 1,928 decisions (see Figure 8(a), bar chart). After the update, Joe focuses on the UMAP McInnes2018UMAP projection. He observes multiple groups of points that could be worthy of further investigation. He selects a couple of samples from different areas, e.g., \raisebox{-.0pt} {\tiny\bfC1}⃝ with 3 RF and 18 AB decisions. Another cluster with 7 decisions is \raisebox{-.0pt} {\tiny\bfC2}⃝ that solely predicts accepted loan applications. On the contrary, \raisebox{-.0pt} {\tiny\bfC3}⃝ contains 2 pure decisions (due to high opacity) that produce rules which reject loans. Joe increases the discretization of local feature ranking from 10 to 15 bins to raise the sensitivity of difference between decision rule ranges, and he filters the instances due to the decisions to observe clearer trends. From Figure 8(b), Joe recognizes that \raisebox{-.0pt} {\tiny\bfC1}⃝ decisions are all identical, having the same ranges for every feature. Also, he understands that low credited amount (Cred_am) and short duration of credit (D_cred) are essential factors for accepting a loan application. Account balance is also vital because all loans are accepted when there is no account (A_bal being 0). Figure 8(c) reveals another intriguing pattern, that is, the length of current employment should be average to extremely high (from approximately 0.4 or 0.6 and above, shown in the red box) for applications to get accepted. In contrast, Figure 8(d) presents that if payment status of previous credit (P_st_cred) and instalment per cent (Ins_perc) are relatively high, the applications were rejected. The \nth12 customer has an account without any balance, and the D_cred is relatively high, which flips the prediction toward rejection. Luckily, Silvia also provided an adequate justification to the customer. Neto2021Explainable

Extracting Manual Decisions through Local Investigations. At this point Joe knows and understands the main decision rules, but a new customer arrives. Focusing on the decisions for this case (i.e., \nth90 test instance), he sets impurity to less than 0.3 (cf. Figure 1(c), slider) to make impure decisions more transparent. Two fairly pure decisions from RF5 (visible due to hovering) and RF9 contradict each other. Joe uses the comparison mode, anchors 1 out of the 2 decisions, and selects the other with the lasso tool. The comparison in Figure 1(d) designates that 8 similar customers’ applications were rejected while 12 were accepted. The small overlap in Cred_am, D_cred, and Age suggest that this is a borderline case. Cred_am seems a bit arbitrary for the training data since only a small amount of applications in-between accepted applications were rejected, see Figure 1(d), feature on top. However, a clear insight is that if D_cred was lower, the application should have been accepted, while the opposite effect is true if the duration of credit increases. Unexpectedly, RF models vote for accepting this loan application while AB models reject (cf. Figure 1(e), top view). Besides that, the manual decisions are also in-between the two classes, which further enhances Joe’s assumption that this is a borderline case. As AB models propose rejection and RF9 produces a decision for rejecting this application, he follows these recommendations. Nonetheless, Joe asks Amy to search and train new performant ML models (see next paragraph).

Tuning the Search for Bagged and Boosted Decision Trees. Amy sees two possibilities of improvement for the RF in Figure 1(e), bottom view. One is to limit the max_features to 7 because it produces the two best models so far (visible by following the lines at the very top in Ov. Score (%)). The second strategy is to pick 3 and 4 for the same hyperparameter to explore an entirely new space of currently unexplored models since there is no existing line. Basically, she believes it is better to try both strategies in two separate runs. As for the AB, she reasons that selecting 0.1 and 0.2 for the learning_rate is a wise choice. Although it may take more time to retrain the AB models, they probably will be more powerful than with the other setting due to historical data. She performs the above actions, and finally, another cycle of exploration is unfolded for both experts. To summarize, our VA system not only helps users to reason about concrete cases, but also is capable of assisting ML experts and domain experts in enhancing their overall understanding due to their collaboration throughout the entire process (RQ2).

We conducted a user study to evaluate our tool’s effectiveness in supporting decision-making. As in prior works, Ming2019RuleMatrix ; Neto2021Explainable we created five questions (Qs) that cover VisRuler’s different views, focusing on appraising the goals described in Section Target Groups, Design Goals, and Analytical Tasks with the use case outlined in Section System Overview and Use Case as the GT (see Table 1). Note that this user study was based on a slightly different arrangement of visualizations for the models overview panel, but all the rest of the visual representations and in-depth functionalities remained the same. In particular during the study, the line chart and the confusion plot were not aligned with the bar charts below, and the legends of this panel were positioned at the very top instead of beside the visualizations (as in Figure 1(a)).

Demographics. Figure 9 contains general information about the attendees of the user study. Seven male and five female volunteers aged 23 to 49 (mean: $\approx$33) participated in our study, all with at least an MSc degree (and two PhD’s). None of them knew the data set used, and no colorblindness issues were reported. Four of the participants were highly knowledgeable in visualization and seven in ML, while the rest had limited knowledge regarding all aspects. Additionally, four of them had never worked with any EL method. All participants were researchers that have to frequently work with ML and tune ML models for various data tasks, such as image classification and natural language processing.

Methodology and Instructions. Initially, participants watched an $\approx$18-minute video tutorial about bagging and boosting concepts, VisRuler’s goals, and how to work with our tool to analyze decision paths, using the Iris data set. Fisher1936The The participants experimented for five minutes with Iris, which concludes the required training for utilizing the capabilities of our tool. Then, they proceeded to use the data set described in Section System Overview and Use Case. They were asked to answer five questions (cf. Table 1 for a summary). The original document containing the questions and instructions as shown by the attendees is available in the supplemental material accompanying this paper. Finally, the participants were requested to provide qualitative feedback via the ICE-T questionnaire. wall2019aheuristic

Question-related Results. The completion time it took the users to respond to each question and their answers to the multiple choice questions are shown in Figure 10. After the initial setting shown in Figure 4(a), all participants decided to exclude Generosity in Q1 (Answer: d, Q1), which happened in 2.03 minutes on average. For Q2, 9 participants followed our GT (Answer: a, Q2), as described in Figure 4(c). The remaining attendees selected AB10 instead of AB8 (Answer: b, Q2). This action led to 5 test instances in conflict (Answer: b, Q3) compared to 3 (Answer: d, Q3) in our analysis (Figure 7(c) presents a single case). This result could be a strong indication that our approach is essential for making such decisions. To respond in Q2 and Q3, participants took 4.04 and 2.58 minutes on average, respectively. The most time-consuming question was Q4 with an average response time of 6.15 minutes (but with very accurate results (Answer: d, Q4), see Figure 5(b)). The average time taken for Q5 was 6.07 minutes, with all correct answers (Answer: c, Q5) except for one (Answer: a, Q5). The participant that responded incorrectly chose Freedom because it was at the bottom of the vertical PCP (cf. Figure 7(b)).

Qualitative Results. In Table 2, the mean scores of the ICE-T components wall2019aheuristic for each participant are displayed along with the two-tailed 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per component ($t^{*}=2.201$, $N=12$). Higher values in green indicate good results, as opposed to red. VisRuler has received a few 7.0 scores, and most are at least 6.0 and above (the lowest score is 4.67). Essence, Insight, and Time received large scores which means users found our tool competent in portraying decisions, guiding users to come up with fundamental questions, and performing these discoveries quickly. Confidence was lower, with a mean value of 5.87. However, this value still makes VisRuler a reliable and trustworthy VA tool according to Wall et al. wall2019aheuristic

In this section, we discuss several limitations of our VA system that could be regarded as improvement ideas for the future.

Generalization. Since VisRuler mainly focuses on the exploration of decision paths, our approach is applicable to any tree-based algorithm. If we follow the same methodology, RF could be changed to extremely randomized trees Geurts2006Extremely (known as extra trees) or other bagging algorithms; while instead of AB, gradient boosting Ke2017LightGBM ; Chen2016XGBoost or any boosting algorithm can be employed. An extension of our approach could be to include new supervised ML methods such as rule-based algorithms, or even association rule learning. Song2016Research However, such algorithms consist of two parts: the antecedent (IF) and the consequent (THEN), which are complicated because there could be multiple if statements that bind many times the values using the same features. Therefore, a single decision path is non-trivial to be extracted, as in our case. One potential enhancement would be to support rule-based algorithms to encode these reoccuring information, which implies an order of consecutive events.

As shown in the paper, VisRuler works with both binary and multi-class classification problems. Since humans may have problems in perceiving more than ten categorical colors Ware2019Information at the same time, VisRuler utilizes all of them as well as possible. Nonetheless, a limitation is the extensive (but unavoidable) use of color that might hinder our tool from operating with more than a few classes. Therefore, applying the one-vs-rest strategy is one possible idea to solve multi-class classification problems with several classes. This strategy translates to either designating one class as the positive class and all others as the negative class or choosing classes and gradually examining them.

At last, although VisRuler concentrates on the interpretation of rules and extraction of manual decisions driven by the experienced domain experts, it can also be used by ML experts to tune the hyperparameters of models and eventually debug RF and AB models. We acknowledge that VisRuler takes premature steps toward this direction, but this concept appears an exciting research opportunity for the future.

Scalability. Similar to many VA tools/systems, Robertson2009Scale a major challenge we considered when designing VisRuler is scalability. In the models overview panel, the number of trained models is limited to 20 RF and AB models in total (or 10 for each algorithm). However, in the backend users can set different hyperparameters and perform hyperparameter search with various automatic hyperparameter tuning approaches Claesen2015Hyperparameter ; Claesen2014Easy or VA tools for this same goal. Li2018HyperTuner ; Chatzimparmpas2021VisEvol VisRuler utilizes Random search for this purpose due to several benefits identified by Bergstra and Bengio. Bergstra2012Random The end result is to visualize several robust and diverse models in our tool, which can be deemed an adequate number of models. Also, the two PCPs for training new RF and AB models allow users to explore more models progressively, especially since the provided hyperparameters’ ranges are also easily modifiable through the code.

In the decisions space view, circles may overlap when the number is large, as with any dimensionality reduction technique presented in a scatter plot. Although VisRuler can visualize thousands of decision paths (illustrated by the usage scenario in Section Usage Scenario), the cluttering of the low-dimensional embedding could be considered as an intrinsic difficulty. To address this issue, we first adopt a filtering approach to remove irrelevant or even overfitting decisions (e.g., see Figure 6(a)), and second we enable users to partially hide out impure decisions (cf. Figure 5(a)). Users may also utilize interactions like panning and zooming to focus on certain regions of circles. A potential future idea is to enhance the current scatter plot with approaches designed to reduce overlapping. Mayorga2013Splatterplots ; Hilasaca2019Overlap

In the manual decisions view while trying to get an overview, the vertical PCP may be challenging to interpret because it requires users to scroll through a list of decisions that expands by the number of features. Despite that, we have implemented multiple layout treatments (e.g., filtering out decisions visible in Figure 6(b)) and interaction possibilities (e.g., the comparison mode for juxtaposing groups of decisions shown in Figure 7(b)) for users to partially overcome these challenges. Furthermore, the most common scenario is to explore regions of decisions paths and focus on specific test instances which by default drastically limits the number of decision rules. In summary, the benefits of this tweaked visualization are many, since users can directly compare a test case with training instances for the various rules applicable and all features of a data set. The vertical PCP can help domain experts to externalize their domain knowledge because it serves as a root for a discussion between experts and the general public. One potential update is to try out alternative PCP designs that could boost the scalability of this view, such as the proposal from Wu et al. Wu2017Making

Efficiency. The performance of VisRuler could pose problems if numerous models are simultaneously active and produce too many decisions. Indeed, the excessive computational time required for exploring thousands of decisions paths along with the initial training of those ML algorithms can be a root cause for further troubles. Using distributed computation processes on performant cloud servers can be one solution for scaling VisRuler to enormous data sets. In the future, we believe that the improvement in high-performance hardware as well as progressive VA approaches Stolper2014Progressive ; Turkay2018Progressive will also benefit VisRuler.

The use case, usage scenario, and user study were performed on a MacBook Pro 2019 with a 2.6 GHz (6-Core) Intel Core i7 CPU, an AMD Radeon Pro 5300M 4 GB GPU, 16 GB of DDR4 RAM at 2667 Mhz, running macOS Monterey, and with Chrome (version 99) as the browser. The system can perform interactively after the model training stage is over, which may take a few minutes for the data sets used in the use case of Section System Overview and Use Case and the usage scenario of Section Usage Scenario. However, we cache the results to speed-up drastically the future executions for the same data sets.

Complexity. Compared to several VA tools/systems, Chatzimparmpas2020The VisRuler is no exception in terms of the high cognitive load that could overwhelm users. Despite that, the proposed workflow of VisRuler (see Figure 2 and read Section System Overview and Use Case) is mainly linear. Furthermore, the participants of our user study (cf. Section User Study) correctly performed most of the provided tasks after a specific training period, which is indicative of the gradual learning curve of our tool. However, in a future iteration of the tool, we plan to implement a hiding functionality for the models overview panel after the initial phase, involving mainly an ML expert selecting powerful and diverse models, is over. Another incremental improvement could be to increase the size of the symbols for the three validation metrics present in the line chart of Figure 1.

Evaluation. While we already conducted a task-based user study with 12 participants that tested the applicability and effectiveness of VisRuler, additional review sessions with experts could help us to validate our tool further. However, as illustrated in Figure 3, our VA system is designed to be operated with a single workflow for two experts that most of the time are set apart and work independently. The prior knowledge and expertise of each group of experts is useful in specific steps of the collaboration schema, especially since they meet only in step 4, related to the decisions space exploration. A threat in this case is the overconfidence effect and overinterpretation of the models’ capabilities by both domain-specific and ML experts, especially in noisy data scenarios. Despite that, we believe our first user study was an appropriate choice of method to understand preliminarily if VisRuler is usable and effective. In the future, we could further evaluate the particular designs of this multi-component system with both ML and domain experts.

We presented VisRuler, a VA tool that allows users to explore diverse rules extracted from bagged and boosted decision trees to reach a consensus about a final decision for each individual case. The multiple coordinated views facilitate the selection of diverse and performant models, the characterization of per-feature contribution, the management of multiple decisions, the analysis of global decisions, and support case-based reasoning. A use case and a usage scenario with real-world data sets emphasize the necessity for combining similar, but yet, different algorithms and the importance of transparency in critical domains. We also validate the usability and efficacy of VisRuler via a user study. Finally, we describe a series of limitations of our VA system with an ultimate goal to extract future directions for our work.

This work was partially supported through the ELLIIT environment for strategic research in Sweden.