Study becomes insight: Ecological learning from machine learning.

Abstract

The ecological and environmental science communities have embraced machine learning (ML) for empirical modelling and prediction. However, going beyond prediction to draw insights into underlying functional relationships between response variables and environmental ‘drivers’ is less straightforward. Deriving ecological insights from fitted ML models requires techniques to extract the ‘learning’ hidden in the ML models.We revisit the theoretical background and effectiveness of four approaches for deriving insights from ML: ranking independent variable importance (Gini importance, GI; permutation importance, PI; split importance, SI; and conditional permutation importance, CPI), and two approaches for inference of bivariate functional relationships (partial dependence plots, PDP; and accumulated local effect plots, ALE). We also explore the use of a surrogate model for visualization and interpretation of complex multi‐variate relationships between response variables and environmental drivers. We examine the challenges and opportunities for extracting ecological insights with these interpretation approaches. Specifically, we aim to improve interpretation of ML models by investigating how effectiveness relates to (a) interpretation algorithm, (b) sample size and (c) the presence of spurious explanatory variables.We base the analysis on simulations with known underlying functional relationships between response and predictor variables, with added white noise and the presence of correlated but non‐influential variables. The results indicate that deriving ecological insight is strongly affected by interpretation algorithm and spurious variables, and moderately impacted by sample size. Removing spurious variables improves interpretation of ML models. Meanwhile, increasing sample size has limited value in the presence of spurious variables, but increasing sample size does improves performance once spurious variables are omitted. Among the four ranking methods, SI is slightly more effective than the other methods in the presence of spurious variables, while GI and SI yield higher accuracy when spurious variables are removed. PDP is more effective in retrieving underlying functional relationships than ALE, but its reliability declines sharply in the presence of spurious variables. Visualization and interpretation of the interactive effects of predictors and the response variable can be enhanced using surrogate models, including three‐dimensional visualizations and use of loess planes to represent independent variable effects and interactions.Machine learning analysts should be aware that including correlated independent variables in ML models with no clear causal relationship to response variables can interfere with ecological inference. When ecological inference is important, ML models should be constructed with independent variables that have clear causal effects on response variables. While interpreting ML models for ecological inference remains challenging, we show that careful choice of interpretation methods, exclusion of spurious variables and adequate sample size can provide more and better opportunities to ‘learn from machine learning’.