Pownie
/
adm-pres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Removed a discussion point and fixed a spelling error. Wow. We have a proper commit message?

This commit is contained in:
Alexander Munch-Hansen 2019-11-28 10:39:25 +01:00
parent b96cb1016d
commit 41e69cc8f8
1 changed files with 1 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
pres.tex
View File

@ -289,7 +289,7 @@
\frametitle{Explaining models}
Idea: We give a global understanding of the model by explaining a set of individual instances
\begin{itemize}
\item Still model agnositc (since the individual explanations are)
\item Still model agnostic (since the individual explanations are)
\item Instances need to be selected in a clever way, as people won't have time to look through all explanations
\item Some definitions
\begin{itemize}
@ -635,7 +635,6 @@
\begin{itemize}
\item Is it fair that the authors create their data in such a way that \emph{Parzen} becomes unusable in their tests?
\item What do you expect to happen if the data is very non-linear even in the local predicitions?
\item The \emph{K-Lasso} algorithm used in \emph{Algorithm 1} is explicitly used for regression analysis and as such it should only work when they use linear models for their explanations. Is this okay?
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
\end{document}