Option A is correct because using local feature importance from the predictions is the best way to provide the reasons that contributed to the model’s decision for a specific customer’s loan request. Local feature importance is a measure of how much each feature affects the prediction for a given instance, relative to the average prediction for the dataset1. AutoML Tables provides local feature importance values for each prediction, which can be accessed using the Vertex AI SDK for Python or the Cloud Console2. By using local feature importance, you can explain why the model rejected the loan request based on the customer’s data.
Option B is incorrect because using the correlation with target values in the data summary page is not a good way to provide the reasons that contributed to the model’s decision for a specific customer’s loan request. The correlation with target values is a measure of how much each feature is linearly related to the target variable for the entire dataset, not for a single instance3. The data summary page in AutoML Tables shows the correlation with target values for each feature, as well as other statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and histogram4. However, these statistics are not useful for explaining the model’s decision for a specific customer, as they do not account for the interactions between features or the non-linearity of the model.
Option C is incorrect because using the feature importance percentages in the model evaluation page is not a good way to provide the reasons that contributed to the model’s decision for a specific customer’s loan request. The feature importance percentages are a measure of how much each feature affects the overall accuracy of the model for the entire dataset, not for a single instance5. The model evaluation page in AutoML Tables shows the feature importance percentages for each feature, as well as other metrics such as precision, recall, and confusion matrix. However, these metrics are not useful for explaining the model’s decision for a specific customer, as they do not reflect the individual contribution of each feature for a given prediction.
Option D is incorrect because varying features independently to identify the threshold per feature that changes the classification is not a feasible way to provide the reasons that contributed to the model’s decision for a specific customer’s loan request. This method involves changing the value of one feature at a time, while keeping the other features constant, and observing how the prediction changes. However, this method is not practical, as it requires making multiple prediction requests, and may not capture the interactions between features or the non-linearity of the model.
