Why does my model fail?: contrastive local explanations for retail forecasting

Abstract

In various business settings, there is an interest in using more complex machine learning techniques for sales forecasting. It is difficult to convince analysts, along with their superiors, to adopt these techniques since the models are considered to be "black boxes," even if they perform better than current models in use. We examine the impact of contrastive explanations about large errors on users' attitudes towards a "black-box" model. We propose an algorithm, Monte Carlo Bounds for Reasonable Predictions. Given a large error, MC-BRP determines (1) feature values that would result in a reasonable prediction, and (2) general trends between each feature and the target, both based on Monte Carlo simulations. We evaluate on a real dataset with real users by conducting a user study with 75 participants to determine if explanations generated by MC-BRP help users understand why a prediction results in a large error, and if this promotes trust in an automatically-learned model. Our study shows that users are able to answer objective questions about the model's predictions with overall 81.1% accuracy when provided with these contrastive explanations. We show that users who saw MC-BRP explanations understand why the model makes large errors in predictions significantly more than users in the control group. We also conduct an in-depth analysis of the difference in attitudes between Practitioners and Researchers, and confirm that our results hold when conditioning on the users' background.