πŸ“š https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83475-4

βœ… Day 4 – Experiments, Performance, and Interpretability in Practice

Today I explored how the proposed system performs across different datasets, how it compares with human experts, and how SHAP helps make the scoring explainable and educational.


πŸ“Š What I Learned – From Metrics to Meaning

πŸ§ͺ Evaluation Metrics


πŸ”¬ Performance Across Models


πŸ‘₯ Comparison with Experts

Dataset MAE (Proposed) MAE (Expert Avg)
XSQ 0.237 0.371–0.420
PBB 0.261 0.319–0.457
TaiChi 0.290 0.130–0.270

β†’ Indicates strong generalization in most styles, but expert intuition still matters in complex domains.


πŸ’‘ SHAP in Action


πŸ” Insight Snapshot

β€œThe model doesn’t just score β€” it teaches.”


πŸ› οΈ What I’ll Build Next


πŸ“ Reflection

This part of the paper really convinced me that alignment and explanation together can make ML feedback systems actually useful β€” not just technically accurate.

It also gave me inspiration for using this approach in rehabilitation or education, where transparency matters more than raw accuracy.