Analyzing Employee Attrition Using Explainable AI for Strategic HR Decision-Making
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Work
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Object
- Understanding the Domain: In the domain of employee attrition analysis, it is essential to comprehend HR processes, industry-specific terminologies, challenges related to employee retention, and other relevant aspects that influence employee attrition.
- Defining Objectives:
- Goal Clarity: Clearly defining the objectives, such as identifying key factors influencing employee attrition and predicting attrition risk accurately.
- Success Criteria: Establishing measurable success criteria, like achieving a certain prediction accuracy, to evaluate the effectiveness of the analysis in addressing the attrition problem.
- Creating Target Dataset:
- Data Collection: Utilizing the IBM HR dataset, a publicly available dataset widely used for studying employee attrition, as the primary data source.
- Data Scope: Defining the scope of the analysis by considering specific features in the dataset, such as employee satisfaction, work environment, and performance, which are crucial for predicting attrition.
- Selecting Relevant Data:
- Feature Selection: Choosing relevant features from the dataset, like job satisfaction levels, working hours, and promotions, which are likely to influence employee attrition and align with the defined objectives.
- Data Sampling: If the dataset is extensive, considering appropriate sampling methods to make the analysis computationally manageable while retaining the dataset’s representativeness.
3.2. Data Preprocessing
- Handling Missing Values:
- Identifying Missing Data: Identifying features with missing values in the dataset, such as null entries in important employee attributes like satisfaction levels or work performance.
- Imputation: Applying appropriate imputation techniques, like mean or median imputation, to fill in missing values and ensure the completeness of the dataset for meaningful analysis.
- Addressing Outliers:
- Outlier Detection: Identifying outliers in relevant features, such as extremely high or low values in variables like work hours or years at the company.
- Outlier Treatment: Applying suitable outlier treatment methods, such as capping or transformation, to mitigate the impact of outliers on the analysis while preserving important information.
- Handling Noise:
- Identifying Noise: Recognizing noisy data points that might distort the analysis, for instance, erroneous entries in salary figures or performance ratings.
- Noise Reduction: Employing noise reduction techniques, like smoothing or filtering, to reduce the impact of noise and enhance the accuracy of subsequent analysis.
3.3. Data Transformation
- Scaling Features:
- Scaling numerical features to a standard range to ensure a uniform influence on the analysis, particularly beneficial for algorithms sensitive to feature magnitudes.
- Encoding Categorical Data:
- Converting categorical features, such as job roles or education levels, into numerical representations using techniques like one-hot encoding for compatibility with machine learning models.
3.4. Data Mining
- Application of Classification Algorithms: Various classification algorithms like logistic regression, decision trees, random forest, support vector machines, or gradient boosting will be utilized. Each algorithm will provide a predictive analysis on whether an employee is likely to leave based on relevant features and variables.
- Evaluating the Attrition Trend: Once the algorithms generate predictions, the attrition tendency of each employee will be evaluated. This analysis will provide insights into the probability of a specific employee leaving the company soon.
- Measuring Accuracy: Model accuracy will be computed using metrics such as accuracy, representing the proportion of correct predictions made by the model.
- AUC/ROC Curves (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve): AUC/ROC curves will be constructed and analyzed. These curves are visual tools for evaluating the predictive ability of classification models. They plot the true positive rate against the false positive rate for different classification thresholds. The area under the curve (AUC) provides a quantitative measure of model quality.
- Detailed Confusion Matrix: The confusion matrix will be generated for each algorithm. This matrix presents a summary of the model’s predictions compared to the actual values. It contains four main components: true positives (TPs), true negatives (TNs), false positives (FPs), and false negatives (FNs). From this matrix, metrics like precision, recall, specificity, and F1 score are calculated.
3.5. XAI
- Inherent Interpretable Models [49]: These models are characterized by their transparent structures and explicit relationships between features and predictions, making them inherently interpretable, e.g., linear regression, decision trees, logistic regression.
- Rule-based Interpretable Models [50]: These models belong to a category that strives to simplify intricate patterns into clear-cut rules. These rules are crafted to improve the transparency of the decision-making process. Rather than depending on complex mathematical functions, these models utilize simple and understandable rules that establish direct connections between input features and predictions. This methodology promotes a more intuitive understanding of how each feature impacts the result, rendering the decision-making process easy to interpret and grasp. Instances of interpretable models based on rules encompass decision trees and rule-based systems.
- Local Interpretable Models [51]: Local interpretable models focus on explaining predictions at the instance level. Their primary goal is to offer a detailed understanding of how the model arrived at a specific prediction for a particular data point. Techniques like LIME (local interpretable model-agnostic explanations) fall into this category, providing insights into the model’s behavior around a specific data point.
- Model-Agnostic Approaches: Model-agnostic methods, such as SHAP (Shapley additive explanations), LIME, and permutation feature importance, provide interpretability for a wide range of models without relying on their internal architecture. These approaches enhance transparency across diverse machine learning models.
- Feature Importance Techniques [52]: Feature importance techniques, including gain-based approaches and permutation importance, highlight the significance of each feature in the model’s predictions. They offer a straightforward understanding of feature contributions. Techniques like ELI5 (explain like I’m 5) and partial dependence plot (PDP) are used in this study.
- Surrogate Models [53]: Surrogate models are simpler and more interpretable models trained to approximate the predictions of complex models. The primary motivation behind employing surrogate models is to gain a better understanding of the intricate decision-making processes of complex models. These surrogate models serve as a bridge between the highly complex, less interpretable models and the need for comprehensible insights into their functioning.
- Visualizations and Plots [39]: Visualization techniques, like partial dependence plots, SHAP summary plots, and feature contribution plots, offer intuitive graphical representations of the model’s behavior and feature influences.
3.5.1. Partial Dependency Plot (PDP)
3.5.2. Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME)
- Choose the instance for which you wish to have an explanation of the predictions;
- Perturb the dataset and obtain the predictions for the new points obtained after the perturbation;
- Weight new samples by their proximity to the instance of interest;
- Fit a weighted and interpretable model (surrogate) on the dataset with the variations;
- Explain the prediction by interpreting the local model.
3.5.3. Feature Importance Techniques (ELI5)
- We estimate the root mean squared error of the original model ;
- We generate the characteristics matrix swapping one for each of the characteristics belonging to the dataset ;
- Based on the predictions of the permuted data, the mean square error is calculated such that ;
- Finally, the importance of the permutation characteristic is calculated as and is sorted by downwards.
3.5.4. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP)
4. Implementing XAI Methodology for Employee Attrition Analysis
- In Section 4.1, one will start by thoroughly understanding the problem, using the IBM HR open dataset. Next, the necessary preprocessing steps will be carried out and the data will be converted to a format suitable for numerical analysis;
- In Section 4.2, in the initial phase, a set of techniques will be applied to conduct an initial exploratory data analysis. Subsequently, a series of ML algorithms will be employed to develop a predictive model as accurate as possible for detecting employee attrition;
- In Section 4.3, an interpretability study of the results will be conducted. It is necessary to interpret and evaluate which attributes are most influential in detecting employee attrition. The models indicated in Table 4 will be applied for this purpose.
4.1. Data Collection, Processing, and Transformation
- Let us summarize the results of this EDA:
- The dataset has no missing or incorrect data values, and all features are of the correct data type;
- The strongest positive correlations with the target features are Performance Rating, Monthly Rate, Number of Companies Worked, and Distance from Home;
- The strongest negative correlations with the target features are Years at Company, Job Level, Years in Current Role, and Monthly Income;
- The dataset is imbalanced with most observations describing currently active employees;
- Several features (i.e., columns) are redundant for our analysis, namely, Employee Count, Employee Number, Standard Hours, and Over18.
- Other observations:
- Single employees show the highest proportion of attrition compared to their married and divorced counterparts;
- Approximately 10% of those who leave the company do so upon completing two years with the company;
- Loyal employees with higher salaries and more responsibilities display a lower proportion of attrition compared to their counterparts;
- Individuals living farther from work exhibit a higher proportion of attrition compared to their counterparts;
- Individuals who travel frequently demonstrate a higher proportion of attrition compared to their counterparts;
- Individuals who must work overtime demonstrate a higher proportion of attrition compared to their counterparts;
- Employees working in sales roles show a significant percentage of attrition in the presented dataset;
- Employees who have worked at multiple companies before (have ‘hopped’ between workplaces) display a higher proportion of attrition compared to their counterparts.
4.2. Employee Attrition Prediction
4.3. ML Interpretability
4.3.1. Partial Dependency Diagram (PDP)
4.3.2. Local Substitute (LIME)
4.3.3. Feature Importance Techniques (ELI5)
4.3.4. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP)
5. Discussion
- A detailed exploratory data analysis was conducted, identifying key features correlated with employee attrition. The study emphasizes the conduct of a preliminary data analysis with the aim of avoiding biases;
- Data cleaning was performed, and an initial analysis of ML models was established, starting from the least to the most interpretable, assigning a score to each model;
- Hyperparameter tuning and data balancing between the majority class (Attrition = ‘No’) and the minority class (Attrition = ‘Yes’) were carried out;
- The tuning was applied to the model that initially showed higher precision, XGBoost, resulting in acceptable outcomes for both the majority and minority class predictions;
- Finally, interpretability was applied using agnostic models (XGBoost), both locally and globally. The techniques outlined in Section 4.3 of this paper were utilized for this purpose. The interpretability process allowed us to comprehend the influential features affecting attrition prediction and aided in making informed decisions for employee retention strategies.
- In the conducted work, the novel contributions can be outlined as follows:
- Comprehensive Methodological Framework: This study presents a comprehensive methodological framework for integrating interpretability into the machine learning pipeline, specifically tailored for the human resources domain. The framework encompasses data preprocessing, model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and model-agnostic interpretability techniques, providing a structured approach to enhancing the transparency and applicability of predictive models.
- Enhanced Decision-making in HR: By employing machine learning models and interpretability techniques, this research aims to empower HR professionals to make more informed and effective decisions regarding employee attrition. Understanding the influential factors contributing to attrition can guide HR strategies, ultimately aiding in the retention of valuable employees and fostering a more productive work environment.
- Strategic Employee Retention and Recruitment: This study emphasizes the importance of identifying key factors associated with employee attrition. The developed models, along with interpretability, highlight variables that significantly influence attrition, enabling organizations to proactively design targeted retention and recruitment strategies. This strategic approach can potentially result in cost savings associated with hiring and training new employees.
- Model-Agnostic Interpretability for Enhanced Trust: The adoption of model-agnostic interpretability techniques, particularly for complex models like XGBoost, enhances the trust and transparency of predictive models. The ability to interpret and explain model predictions to stakeholders fosters a greater understanding and acceptance of the machine learning outcomes, especially in HR decision-making.
- Consideration of Class Imbalance for Interpretability: Addressing class imbalance and applying interpretability techniques that consider this imbalance is vital in the context of employee attrition prediction. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding influential features for both attrition and non-attrition cases, promoting a more balanced interpretation and a nuanced understanding of the prediction process.
6. Conclusions and Future Work
- Comprehensive Methodological Framework for Data-Driven Decision-Making in HR: Developing a comprehensive methodological framework to enable data-driven decision-making processes based on an organization’s historical data. Recruitment, personnel selection, and retention processes can be data-informed, aiding in HR strategies and improving organizational performance.
- Weight Assignment using AHP/FAHP and End-to-End Decision-Making: Assigning weights to each criterion using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) or fuzzy AHP (FAHP) methodologies and implementing an end-to-end decision-making process. Weights can be derived from the importance of features determined by the ML model, leading to a methodology based on fuzziness to be applied in selection processes, employee retention, and internal promotion.
- Biases and Explainable Artificial Intelligence: With the aim of reducing biases introduced in the initial data, a model for ongoing data review and evaluation is proposed to decrease the likelihood of bias in decision-making. In future work, the combination of the proposed methodology with a decision-making model based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is suggested. This approach ensures that the criteria determining employee turnover or any other human resources process are guided by explainable AI and validated against a decision-making model based on mathematics and psychology, such as Saaty’s model [62].
- Employee Clustering for Personalized Actions: Creating employee clusters and devising personalized actions based on cluster membership. Tailoring strategies and actions for employees based on their cluster can enhance employee engagement, satisfaction, and productivity.
- Integration of External and Contextual Data: Exploring the integration of external and contextual data in the predictive analysis of employee retention. This can encompass economic, social, or even weather-related data that may influence employees’ decisions to stay or leave the company. Combining internal organizational data with these external sources can enrich the understanding of factors affecting retention.
- Impact of Technology Adoption and AI in Selection Processes: Investigate and assess the impact of technology adoption, specifically artificial intelligence, on personnel selection processes. This would involve developing a technology acceptance model (TAM) tailored to the employee context, identifying the factors influencing its adoption and how they affect the efficiency and effectiveness of selection processes. Additionally, exploring the implementation of training and development programs to ensure all employees are proficient in effectively using these technologies. This line of research is crucial to ensure that technology adoption, especially in the realm of human resources, is beneficial and equitable for all employees, contributing to optimizing talent management and decision-making in organizations.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rughoobur-Seetah, S. The Unprecedented Lockdown: The consequences of job loss. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus. 2021, 24, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serenko, A. The Great Resignation: The great knowledge exodus or the onset of the Great Knowledge Revolution? J. Knowl. Manag. 2023, 27, 1042–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randstad Research. Informe de rotación laboral en España. Randstad Res. 2022. Available online: https://www.randstadresearch.es/informe-rotacion-2022/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Marín Díaz, G.; Galán, J.J.; Carrasco, R.A. XAI for Churn Prediction in B2B Models: A Use Case in an Enterprise Software Company. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linardatos, P.; Papastefanopoulos, V.; Kotsiantis, S. Explainable ai: A review of machine learning interpretability methods. Entropy 2021, 23, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, D. Review of literature on factors influencing attrition and retention. Int. J. Organ. Behav. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 2, 435–445. [Google Scholar]
- Colomo-Palacios, R.; Casado-Lumbreras, C.; Misra, S.; Soto-Acosta, P. Career Abandonment Intentions among Software Workers. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2014, 24, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Climek, M.; Henry, R.; Jeong, S. Integrative literature review on employee turnover antecedents across different generations: Commonalities and uniqueness. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saradhi, V.V.; Palshikar, G.K. Employee churn prediction. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 1999–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fallucchi, F.; Coladangelo, M.; Giuliano, R.; De Luca, E.W. Predicting Employee Attrition Using Machine Learning Techniques. Computers 2020, 9, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, P.R.; Eachempati, P. Intelligent Employee Retention System for Attrition Rate Analysis and Churn Prediction: An Ensemble Machine Learning and Multi- Criteria Decision-Making Approach. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2021, 29, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, N.; Tomar, A.; Jana, P.K. A novel scheme for employee churn problem using multi-attribute decision making approach and machine learning. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2021, 56, 279–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khera, S.N. Divya Predictive Modelling of Employee Turnover in Indian IT Industry Using Machine Learning Techniques. Vis. J. Bus. Perspect. 2019, 23, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yahia, N.B.; Hlel, J.; Colomo-Palacios, R. From Big Data to Deep Data to Support People Analytics for Employee Attrition Prediction. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 60447–60458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, P.K.; Jain, M.; Pamula, R. Explaining and predicting employees’ attrition: A machine learning approach. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najafi-Zangeneh, S.; Shams-Gharneh, N.; Arjomandi-Nezhad, A.; Zolfani, S.H. An Improved Machine Learning-Based Employees Attrition Prediction Framework with Emphasis on Feature Selection. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, A.; Munir, K.; Almutairi, M.; Younas, F.; Fareed, M.M.S. Predicting Employee Attrition Using Machine Learning Approaches. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozmen, E.P.; Ozcan, T. A novel deep learning model based on convolutional neural networks for employee churn prediction. J. Forecast. 2022, 41, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pratt, M.; Boudhane, M.; Cakula, S. Employee Attrition Estimation Using Random Forest Algorithm. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2021, 9, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansor, N.; Sani, N.S.; Aliff, M. Machine Learning for Predicting Employee Attrition. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2021, 12, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsheref, F.K.; Fattoh, I.E.; Ead, W.M. Automated Prediction of Employee Attrition Using Ensemble Model Based on Machine Learning Algorithms. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 2022, 7728668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Darraji, S.; Honi, D.G.; Fallucchi, F.; Abdulsada, I.A.; Giuliano, R.; Abdulmalik, H.A. Employee Attrition Prediction Using Deep Neural Networks. Computers 2021, 10, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Shi, T.; Reddy, C.K. A Novel Tensor-Based Temporal Multi-Task Survival Analysis Model. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2021, 33, 3311–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerranti, F.; Dimitri, G.M. A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting Employee Attrition. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naz, K.; Siddiqui, I.F.; Koo, J.; Khan, M.A.; Qureshi, N.M.F. Predictive Modeling of Employee Churn Analysis for IoT-Enabled Software Industry. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, N.; Jana, P.K. XRRF: An eXplainable Reasonably Randomised Forest algorithm for classification and regression problems br. Inf. Sci. 2022, 613, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Ng, Y.C.; Gui, Z.; Singhal, T.; Blessing, L.T.M.; Wood, K.L.; Lim, K.H. Title2Vec: A contextual job title embedding for occupational named entity recognition and other applications. J. Big Data 2022, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandyopadhyay, N.; Jadhav, A. Churn Prediction of Employees Using Machine Learning Techniques. Teh. Glas. J. 2021, 15, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshiddy, M.S.; Aljaber, B.N. Employee Attrition Prediction using Nested Ensemble Learning Techniques. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2023, 14, 932–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vergnolle, G.; Lahrichi, N. Data-Driven Analysis of Employee Churn in the Home Care Industry. Home Health CARE Manag. Pract. 2023, 35, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, D.; Yun, J.; Lee, J.; Jeon, Y. Predictive model of employee attrition based on stacking ensemble learning. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 215, 119364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abhiraj, N.; Deepa, N. Effective comparison of logistic regression and support vector machine classifier to predict enhanced employee attrition for increasing accuracy of non-numerical data. Int. J. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 2022, 14, 5587–5596. [Google Scholar]
- Chaudhary, M.; Gaur, L.; Jhanjhi, N.Z.; Masud, M.; Aljahdali, S. Envisaging Employee Churn Using MCDM and Machine Learning. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2022, 33, 1009–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanalakshmi, R.V.; Tiwari, R.; Misra, S.; Punniyamoorthy, R. Understanding Employee Attrition-An Organizational Change Perspective-using Predictive Analysis Techniques. J. Coast. Life Med. 2022, 10, 612–618. [Google Scholar]
- Vanegas, J.M.A.; Wine, W.; Drasgow, F. Predictions of attrition among US Marine Corps: Comparison of four predictive methods. Mil. Psychol. 2022, 34, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekaran, K.; Shanmugam, S. Interpreting the Factors of Employee Attrition using Explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA), Chiangrai, Thailand, 23–25 March 2022; pp. 932–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnar, C. Interpretable Machine Learning. A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable. Book. 2019, p. 247. Available online: https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Ribeiro, M.T.; Singh, S.; Guestrin, C. Anchors: High-precision model-agnostic explanations. In Proceedings of the 32nd Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–7 February 2018; pp. 1527–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundberg, S.M.; Lee, S.I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 2017, 4766–4775. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, J. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29, 1189–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, A.; Kapelner, A.; Bleich, J.; Pitkin, E. Peeking Inside the Black Box: Visualizing Statistical Learning With Plots of Individual Conditional Expectation. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 2015, 24, 44–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassija, V.; Chamola, V.; Mahapatra, A.; Singal, A.; Goel, D.; Huang, K.; Scardapane, S.; Spinelli, I.; Mahmud, M.; Hussain, A. Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Cognit. Comput. 2023, 2023, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafique, U.; Qaiser, H. A Comparative Study of Data Mining Process Models (KDD, CRISP-DM and SEMMA). Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. 2014, 12, 217–222. [Google Scholar]
- Kaggle HR Analytic Data Set. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/pavansubhasht/ibm-hr-analytics-attrition-dataset (accessed on 14 July 2023).
- Kaufman, S.; Rosset, S.; Perlich, C.; Stitelman, O. Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 2012, 6, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamiran, F.; Calders, T. Data Preprocessing Techniques for Classification without Discrimination. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2012, 33, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alasadi, S.A.; Bhaya, W.S. Review of Data Preprocessing Techniques. J. Eng. Applie Sci. 2017, 12, 4102–4107. [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho, D.V.; Pereira, E.M.; Cardoso, J.S. Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electron. 2019, 8, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipton, Z.C. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM 2018, 61, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Letham, B.; Rudin, C.; McCormick, T.H.; Madigan, D. Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2015, 9, 1350–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, M.T.; Singh, S.; Guestrin, C. “Why Should I Trust You?” Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations, San Diego, CA, USA, 12–17 June 2016; pp. 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, Y.; Caruana, R.; Gehrke, J.; Hooker, G. Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, IL, USA, 11–14 August 2013; Part F1288. pp. 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breiman, L. Stacked regressions. Mach. Learn. 1996, 24, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Melis, D.; Jaakkola, T.S. On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1806.08049. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, A.; Rudin, C.; Dominici, F. All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable’s importance by studying an entire class of prediction models simultaneously. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019, 20, 177. [Google Scholar]
- Lundberg, S.M.; Erion, G.G.; Lee, S.-I. Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1802.03888. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.; Deng, C.; Wang, S. Imbalance-XGBoost: Leveraging weighted and focal losses for binary label-imbalanced classification with XGBoost. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2020, 136, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batista, G.E.A.P.A.; Bazzan, A.L.C.; Monard, M.C. Balancing Training Data for Automated Annotation of Keywords: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the II Brazilian Workshop on Bioinformatics, Macaé, Brazil, 3–5 December 2003; pp. 35–43. [Google Scholar]
- Altmann, A.; Toloşi, L.; Sander, O.; Lengauer, T. Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1340–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koch, M.J.; Mcgrath, R.G. I- Resource Management Policies do Malter. Strateg. Manag. J. Manag. 1996, 17, 335–354. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation LK; McGraw-Hill International Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1980; p. SE-Xiii. 287p, ISBN 0070543712/9780070543713. Available online: https://ucm.on.worldcat.org/oclc/911278091 (accessed on 11 September 2023).
Area | Publications | % |
---|---|---|
Business Economics | 247 | 41.24% |
Computer Science | 100 | 16.69% |
Education | 97 | 16.19% |
Psychology | 90 | 15.03% |
Others | 65 | 10.85% |
Author | Description | Models |
---|---|---|
V. V. Saradhi et al., 2011 [9] | Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
F. Fallucchi et al., 2020 [10] | Gaussian Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
P. R. Srivastava et al., 2021 [11] | Random Forest, XGBoost, Deep Neural Network | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
N. Jain et al., 2021 [12] | Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, XGBoost | EDA, TOPSIS, ML Model Comparison |
S. N. Khera et al., 2019 [13] | Support Vector Machine | EDA, ML Model |
N. Ben Yahia et al., 2021 [14] | Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, K-Nearest | EDA, ML Model Comparison, Feature Exploratory Study |
P. K. Jain et al., 2020 [15] | Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
S. Najafi-Zangeneh et al., 2021 [16] | Logistic Regression, Random Forest, K-Nearest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
A. Raza et al., 2022 [17] | Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree Classifier, Extra Trees Classifier | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
E. P. Ozmen et al., 2022 [18] | Naive Bayes, Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
M. Pratt et al., 2021 [19] | Random Forest | EDA, ML Model |
N. Mansor et al., 2021 [20] | Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Artificial Neural Networks | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
F. K. Alsheref et al., 2022 [21] | Multilayer Perceptron Classifier, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Ensemble Model, | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
S. Al-Darraji et al., 2021 [22] | Deep Neural Networks | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
P. Wang et al., 2021 [23] | Multitask Model | ML Model Comparison |
F. Guerranti et al., 2023 [24] | Logistic Regression, Classification Trees, Random Forest, Naive Bayes Classifier, Neural Network | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
P K. Naz et al., 2022 [25] | Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Neural Network, Logistic Regression, Random Forest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
N. Jain et al., 2022 [26] | Random Forest, Explainability | Explainability Models based on Random Forest |
J. Liu et al., 2022 [27] | Logistic Regression, Long Short-Term Memory | EDA, ML Models Comparison |
N. Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021 [28] | Naive Bayes Classifier, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
M. S. Alshiddy et al., 2023 [29] | Naive Bayes Classifier, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
G. Vergnolle et al., 2023 [30] | Analysis | EDA |
D. Chung et al., 2023 [31] | Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, Support Vector Machine, Neural Networks | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
N. Abhiraj et al., 2022 [32] | Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
E M. Chaudhary et al., 2022 [33] | Multi-criteria Decision-Making, CatBoost, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest, XGBoost | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
U R. V Dhanalakshmi et al., 2022 [34] | Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
J. M. A. Vanegas et al., 2022 [35] | Logistic Regression, Classification Trees, Random Forest | EDA, ML Model Comparison |
K. Sekaran et al., 2022 [36] | LightGBM, Interpretable ML (SHAP, LIME) | Interpretable Model-Agnostic |
Author | Models | Description |
---|---|---|
Ribeiro et al., 2018 [38] | LIME | Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations |
Lundberg et al., 2017 [39] | SHAP | A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions |
Friedman, 2001 [40] | PDP, Features Importance | Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine |
Goldstein et al., 2014 [41] | PDP, ICE | Peeking Inside the Black Box: Visualizing Statistical Learning with Plots of Individual Conditional Expectation |
Hassija et al., 2023 [42] | PDP, ICE, ALE, LIME | Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence |
Molnar, 2019 [37] | LIME, SHAP, Feature Importance | Interpretable Machine Learning |
Explanation Method | Scope | Group Method |
---|---|---|
PDP [41] | Global | Feature Importance Techniques, Visualizations and Plots |
LIME [51] | Local | Model-Agnostic Approaches, Surrogate Models |
ELI5 [54] | Global | Feature Importance Techniques |
SHAP [39] | Local | Model-Agnostic Approaches, Visualizations and Plots |
Features | |
---|---|
Age | Monthly Income |
Attrition | Monthly Rate |
Business Travel | Number of Companies Worked |
Daily Rate | Over18 |
Department | Over Time |
Distance from Home | Percent Salary Hike |
Education | Performance Rating |
Education Field | Relationship Satisfaction |
Employee Count | Standard Hours |
Employee Number | Stock Option Level |
Environment Satisfaction | Total Working Years |
Gender | Training Times Last Year |
Hourly Rate | Work Life Balance |
Job Involvement | Years at Company |
Job Level | Years in Current Role |
Job Role | Years since Last Promotion |
Job Satisfaction | Years with Current Manager |
Marital Status |
Algorithm | ROC AUC Mean | ROC AUC STD | Accuracy Mean | Accuracy STD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | XGBoost | 79.23 | 5.54 | 85.91 | 2.51 |
1 | Random Forest | 79.20 | 4.33 | 85.81 | 2.61 |
3 | KNN | 66.94 | 5.82 | 84.55 | 2.58 |
2 | SVM | 80.78 | 5.15 | 83.87 | 3.04 |
4 | Decision Tree Classifier | 65.24 | 6.21 | 80.66 | 2.99 |
0 | Logistic Regression | 81.20 | 4.72 | 75.90 | 5.36 |
5 | Gaussian NB | 74.63 | 3.21 | 60.32 | 12.47 |
Weight | Feature |
---|---|
0.0867 ± 0.0119 | OverTime |
0.0373 ± 0.0113 | MonthlyIncome |
0.0089 ± 0.0072 | DailyRate |
0.0056 ± 0.0033 | DistanceFromHome |
0.0052 ± 0.0010 | RelationshipSatisfaction |
0.0051 ± 0.0015 | JobSatisfaction |
0.0047 ± 0.0019 | NumCompaniesWorked |
0.0043 ± 0.0029 | MonthlyRate |
0.0041 ± 0.0015 | MaritalStatus_Single |
0.0041 ± 0.0026 | StockOptionLevel |
0.0033 ± 0.0020 | Age |
0.0025 ± 0.0016 | EnvironmentSatisfaction |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marín Díaz, G.; Galán Hernández, J.J.; Galdón Salvador, J.L. Analyzing Employee Attrition Using Explainable AI for Strategic HR Decision-Making. Mathematics 2023, 11, 4677. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224677
Marín Díaz G, Galán Hernández JJ, Galdón Salvador JL. Analyzing Employee Attrition Using Explainable AI for Strategic HR Decision-Making. Mathematics. 2023; 11(22):4677. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224677
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarín Díaz, Gabriel, José Javier Galán Hernández, and José Luis Galdón Salvador. 2023. "Analyzing Employee Attrition Using Explainable AI for Strategic HR Decision-Making" Mathematics 11, no. 22: 4677. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224677
APA StyleMarín Díaz, G., Galán Hernández, J. J., & Galdón Salvador, J. L. (2023). Analyzing Employee Attrition Using Explainable AI for Strategic HR Decision-Making. Mathematics, 11(22), 4677. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224677