• Home
  • Search
  • SAGE Intrusion Detection System: Sensitivity Analysis Guided Explainability for Machine Learning.
  • Cite Icon4
  • https://doi.org/10.2172/1820253Copy DOI Icon

SAGE Intrusion Detection System: Sensitivity Analysis Guided Explainability for Machine Learning.

  • Sep 1, 2021
  • Michael Smith +14 more
Show More
  • Abstract
  • Literature Map
  • Citations
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

This report details the results of a three-fold investigation of sensitivity analysis (SA) for machine learning (ML) explainability (MLE): (1) the mathematical assessment of the fidelity of an explanation with respect to a learned ML model, (2) quantifying the trustworthiness of a prediction, and (3) the impact of MLE on the efficiency of end-users through multiple users studies. We focused on the cybersecurity domain as the data is inherently non-intuitive. As ML is being using in an increasing number of domains, including domains where being wrong can elicit high consequences, MLE has been proposed as a means of generating trust in a learned ML models by end users. However, little analysis has been performed to determine if the explanations accurately represent the target model and they themselves should be trusted beyond subjective inspection. Current state-of-the-art MLE techniques only provide a list of important features based on heuristic measures and/or make certain assumptions about the data and the model which are not representative of the real-world data and models. Further, most are designed without considering the usefulness by an end-user in a broader context. To address these issues, we present a notion of explanation fidelity based on Shapley values from cooperative game theory. We find that all of the investigated MLE explainability methods produce explanations that are incongruent with the ML model that is being explained. This is because they make critical assumptions about feature independence and linear feature interactions for computational reasons. We also find that in deployed, explanations are rarely used due to a variety of reason including that there are several other tools which are trusted more than the explanations and there is little incentive to use the explanations. In the cases when the explanations are used, we found that there is the danger that explanations persuade the end users to wrongly accept false positives and false negatives. However, ML model developers and maintainers find the explanations more useful to help ensure that the ML model does not have obvious biases. In light of these findings, we suggest a number of future directions including developing MLE methods that directly model non-linear model interactions and including design principles that take into account the usefulness of explanations to the end user. We also augment explanations with a set of trustworthiness measures that measure geometric aspects of the data to determine if the model output should be trusted.

Similar Papers
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Machine Learning Recognition of Artificial DNA Sequence with Quantum Tunneling Nanogap Junction.

  • Jan 09, 2025
  • The journal of physical chemistry. B
  • Milan Kumar Jena +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations5

Application of Machine Learning to Interpret Steady-State Drainage Relative Permeability Experiments

  • Mar 22, 2023
  • SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
  • Eric Sonny Mathew +4
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations40

Machine Learning Models for Blood Glucose Level Prediction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

  • Nov 20, 2023
  • JMIR Medical Informatics
  • Kui Liu +9
  • Research Article
  • Citations1

Machine Learning Models in the Prediction of One-Year Mortality in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer on Immunotherapy

  • Jan 01, 2021
  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • Thomas Kl Lui +2
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations42

Prediction of shear behavior of glass FRP bars-reinforced ultra-highperformance concrete I-shaped beams using machine learning

  • Aug 30, 2023
  • International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design
  • Asif Ahmed +6
  • Research Article
  • Citations527

Systematic literature review of machine learning based software development effort estimation models

  • Sep 16, 2011
  • Information and Software Technology
  • Jianfeng Wen +4
  • Research Article

Probing the Explainability of Neural Network Cloud-Top Pressure Models for LEO and GEO Imagers

  • Oct 01, 2022
  • Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems
  • Charles H White +2
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations27

Development of Monthly Reference Evapotranspiration Machine Learning Models and Mapping of Pakistan—A Comparative Study

  • May 23, 2022
  • Water
  • Jizhang Wang +8
  • Research Article
  • Citations1

Do You Consent to the Use of Your Biological Data for Training ML and AI Models? Online Survey Targeting Clinicians and Researchers.

  • Jan 27, 2024
  • Web3 Journal: ML in Health Science
  • Yury Rusinovich +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations63

Optimisation and interpretation of machine and deep learning models for improved water quality management in Lake Loktak

  • Dec 25, 2023
  • Journal of Environmental Management
  • Swapan Talukdar +7
  • Research Article

Machine learning models to predict skeletal-related events in bone metastasis from advanced cancer.

  • Jun 01, 2025
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Hirotaka Miyashita +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations29

Machine learning-based water quality prediction using octennial in-situ Daphnia magna biological early warning system data

  • Dec 08, 2023
  • Journal of Hazardous Materials
  • Heewon Jeong +6
  • Research Article

PD27-01 DEVELOPMENT OF A MACHINE LEARNING (ML) MODEL TO AUTOMATICALLY AND PRECISELY IDENTIFY KIDNEY STONES FROM URETEROSCOPY VIDEO RECORDINGS

  • May 01, 2024
  • The Journal of Urology
  • Galen Cheng +6
  • Research Article
  • Citations37

Computed Tomography Perfusion-Based Machine Learning Model Better Predicts Follow-Up Infarction in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.

  • Jan 01, 2020
  • Stroke
  • Hulin Kuang +22
  • PDF
  • Peer Review Report

Comment on acp-2021-634

  • Nov 12, 2021
  • Sing‐Chun Wang +3
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.