[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Auditing black-box models for indirect influence

Published: 01 January 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Data-trained predictive models see widespread use, but for the most part they are used as black boxes which output a prediction or score. It is therefore hard to acquire a deeper understanding of model behavior and in particular how different features influence the model prediction. This is important when interpreting the behavior of complex models or asserting that certain problematic attributes (such as race or gender) are not unduly influencing decisions. In this paper, we present a technique for auditing black-box models, which lets us study the extent to which existing models take advantage of particular features in the data set, without knowing how the models work. Our work focuses on the problem of indirect influence: how some features might indirectly influence outcomes via other, related features. As a result, we can find attribute influences even in cases where, upon further direct examination of the model, the attribute is not referred to by the model at all. Our approach does not require the black-box model to be retrained. This is important if, for example, the model is only accessible via an API, and contrasts our work with other methods that investigate feature influence such as feature selection. We present experimental evidence for the effectiveness of our procedure using a variety of publicly available data sets and models. We also validate our procedure using techniques from interpretable learning and feature selection, as well as against other black-box auditing procedures. To further demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique, we use it to audit a black-box recidivism prediction algorithm.

References

[1]
Adler P, Falk C, Friedler SA, Rybeck G, Scheidegger C, Smith B, Venkatasubramanian S (2016) Auditing black-box models for indirect influence, In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM)
[2]
Agrawal R, Srikant R (2000) Privacy-preserving data mining, In: ACM Sigmod Record, vol 29. ACM, pp. 439---450
[3]
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L (2016) Machine bias, ProPublica
[4]
Barakat N, Diederich J (2004) Learning-based rule-extraction from support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computer theory and applications
[5]
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5---32
[6]
Bucilua C, Caruana R, Niculescu-Mizil A (2006) Model compression, In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, pp 535---541
[7]
Casella G, Berger RL (2001) Statistical inference, 2nd edn. Cengage Learning, Boston
[8]
Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40:16---28
[9]
Chouldechova A (2016) Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. In: Presented at the workshop on fairness, accountability, and transparency in machine learning (FATML)
[10]
Clark P, Niblett T (1989) The cn2 induction algorithm. Mach Learn 3(4):261---283
[11]
Datta A, Sen S, Zick Y (2016) Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: theory and experiments with learning systems. In: Proceedings of 37th IEEE symposium on security and privacy
[12]
Duivesteijn W, Thaele J (2014) Understanding where your classifier does (not) work--the SCaPE model class for EMM, In: International conference on data mining (ICDM), pp 809---814
[13]
Feldman M, Friedler SA, Moeller J, Scheidegger C, Venkatasubramanian S (2015) Certifying and removing disparate impact. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM KDD, pp 259---268
[14]
Freedman D, Diaconis P (1981) On the histogram as a density estimator: L 2 theory. Probab Theory Relat Fields 57(4):453---476
[15]
Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1998) Classification by pairwise coupling. In: Jordan MI, Kearns MJ, Solla SA (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 10. MIT Press, Cambridge
[16]
Henelius A, Puolamäki K, Boström H, Asker L, Papapetrou P (2014) A peek into the black box: exploring classifiers by randomization. Data Min Knowl Disc 28:1503---1529
[17]
Kabra M, Robie A, Branson K (2015) Understanding classifier errors by examining influential neighbors. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 3917---3925
[18]
Kaufman S, Rosset S, Perlich C, Stitelman O (2012) Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data (TKDD) 6(4):15
[19]
Kleinberg J, Mullainathan S, Raghavan M (2017) Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores, In: Proceedings of innovations in theoretical computer science (ITCS)
[20]
Le QV, Ranzato M, Monga R, Devin M, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J, Ng AY (2011) Building high-level features using large scale unsupervised learning. In: Proceedings of the ICML
[21]
Massey DS, Denton N (1993) American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
[22]
Motwani R, Raghavan P (1995) Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[23]
Quinlan R (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo
[24]
Raccuglia P, Elbert KC, Adler PDF, Falk C, Wenny MB, Mollo A, Zeller M, Friedler SA, Schrier J, Norquist AJ (2016) Machine-learning-assisted materials discovery using failed experiments. Nature 533:73---76
[25]
Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In: Proceedings of the ACM KDD
[26]
Romei A, Ruggieri S (2014) A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. Knowl Eng Rev 29:582---638
[27]
Rubner Y, Tomasi C, Guibas LJ (1998) A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In: 6th International conference on computer vision 1998. IEEE, pp 59---66
[28]
Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Kneib T, Augustin T, Zeileis A (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinf 9(1):1
[29]
Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinf 8(1):1
[30]
Ustun B, Traca S, Rudin C (2014) Supersparse linear integer models for interpretable classification. Technical report 1306.6677, arXiv
[31]
Zacarias OP, Bostrom H (2013) Comparing support vector regression and random forests for predicting malaria incidence in Mozambique. In: International conference on advances in ICT for emerging regions (ICTer), 2013. IEEE, pp 217---221
[32]
Zeiler MD, Fergus R (2014) Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In: Computer vision--ECCV 2014. Springer, pp 818---833

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Roadmap of Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Explain to Whom, When, What and How?ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems10.1145/370200419:4(1-40)Online publication date: 24-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Fairness in Machine Learning: A SurveyACM Computing Surveys10.1145/361686556:7(1-38)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
  • (2024)DMT-EV: An Explainable Deep Network for Dimension ReductionIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2022.322339930:3(1710-1727)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Auditing black-box models for indirect influence

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Knowledge and Information Systems
    Knowledge and Information Systems  Volume 54, Issue 1
    January 2018
    260 pages

    Publisher

    Springer-Verlag

    Berlin, Heidelberg

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2018

    Author Tags

    1. ANOVA
    2. Algorithmic accountability
    3. Black-box auditing
    4. Deep learning
    5. Discrimination-aware data mining
    6. Feature influence
    7. Interpretable machine learning

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)A Roadmap of Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Explain to Whom, When, What and How?ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems10.1145/370200419:4(1-40)Online publication date: 24-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Fairness in Machine Learning: A SurveyACM Computing Surveys10.1145/361686556:7(1-38)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
    • (2024)DMT-EV: An Explainable Deep Network for Dimension ReductionIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2022.322339930:3(1710-1727)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
    • (2024)A TabPFN-based intrusion detection system for the industrial internet of thingsThe Journal of Supercomputing10.1007/s11227-024-06166-x80:14(20080-20117)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
    • (2024)FairMOE: counterfactually-fair mixture of experts with levels of interpretabilityMachine Language10.1007/s10994-024-06583-2113:9(6539-6559)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
    • (2024)Fairness as a Service (FaaS): verifiable and privacy-preserving fairness auditing of machine learning systemsInternational Journal of Information Security10.1007/s10207-023-00774-z23:2(981-997)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2024
    • (2023)Estimating and controlling for equalized odds via sensitive attribute predictorsProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3666122.3667738(37173-37192)Online publication date: 10-Dec-2023
    • (2023)Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive SurveyACM Journal on Responsible Computing10.1145/36313261:2(1-52)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
    • (2023)Add-Remove-or-Relabel: Practitioner-Friendly Bias Mitigation via Influential FairnessProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3593013.3594039(736-752)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Your Browsing History May Cost You: A Framework for Discovering Differential Pricing in Non-Transparent MarketsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3593013.3594038(717-735)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media