A Framework for Auditing Multilevel Models using Explainability Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.01611v2
• Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:38:23 GMT
• Title: A Framework for Auditing Multilevel Models using Explainability Methods
• Authors: Debarati Bhaumik, Diptish Dey, Subhradeep Kayal
• Abstract summary: An audit framework for technical assessment of regressions is proposed. The focus is on three aspects, model, discrimination, and transparency and explainability. It is demonstrated that popular explainability methods, such as SHAP and LIME, underperform in accuracy when interpreting these models.
• Score: 2.578242050187029
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Applications of multilevel models usually result in binary classification within groups or hierarchies based on a set of input features. For transparent and ethical applications of such models, sound audit frameworks need to be developed. In this paper, an audit framework for technical assessment of regression MLMs is proposed. The focus is on three aspects, model, discrimination, and transparency and explainability. These aspects are subsequently divided into sub aspects. Contributors, such as inter MLM group fairness, feature contribution order, and aggregated feature contribution, are identified for each of these sub aspects. To measure the performance of the contributors, the framework proposes a shortlist of KPIs. A traffic light risk assessment method is furthermore coupled to these KPIs. For assessing transparency and explainability, different explainability methods (SHAP and LIME) are used, which are compared with a model intrinsic method using quantitative methods and machine learning modelling. Using an open source dataset, a model is trained and tested and the KPIs are computed. It is demonstrated that popular explainability methods, such as SHAP and LIME, underperform in accuracy when interpreting these models. They fail to predict the order of feature importance, the magnitudes, and occasionally even the nature of the feature contribution. For other contributors, such as group fairness and their associated KPIs, similar analysis and calculations have been performed with the aim of adding profundity to the proposed audit framework. The framework is expected to assist regulatory bodies in performing conformity assessments of AI systems using multilevel binomial classification models at businesses. It will also benefit businesses deploying MLMs to be future proof and aligned with the European Commission proposed Regulation on Artificial Intelligence.

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Top-K Pairwise Ranking: Bridging the Gap Among Ranking-Based Measures for Multi-Label Classification [120.37051160567277]
  This paper proposes a novel measure named Top-K Pairwise Ranking (TKPR) A series of analyses show that TKPR is compatible with existing ranking-based measures. On the other hand, we establish a sharp generalization bound for the proposed framework based on a novel technique named data-dependent contraction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T09:36:37Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Faithful Explanations of Black-box NLP Models Using LLM-generated Counterfactuals [67.64770842323966]
  Causal explanations of predictions of NLP systems are essential to ensure safety and establish trust. Existing methods often fall short of explaining model predictions effectively or efficiently. We propose two approaches for counterfactual (CF) approximation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T07:31:04Z)
• Incorporating Domain Knowledge in Deep Neural Networks for Discrete Choice Models [0.5801044612920815]
  This paper proposes a framework that expands the potential of data-driven approaches for DCM. It includes pseudo data samples that represent required relationships and a loss function that measures their fulfillment. A case study demonstrates the potential of this framework for discrete choice analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T12:53:55Z)
• An Audit Framework for Technical Assessment of Binary Classifiers [0.0]
  Multilevel models using logistic regression (MLogRM) and random forest models (RFM) are increasingly deployed in industry for the purpose of binary classification. The European Commission's proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) necessitates, under certain conditions, that application of such models is fair, transparent, and ethical. This paper proposes and demonstrates an audit framework for technical assessment of RFMs and MLogRMs by focussing on model-, discrimination, and transparency & explainability-related aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-17T12:48:11Z)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• PermuteAttack: Counterfactual Explanation of Machine Learning Credit Scorecards [0.0]
  This paper is a note on new directions and methodologies for validation and explanation of Machine Learning (ML) models employed for retail credit scoring in finance. Our proposed framework draws motivation from the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) security and adversarial ML.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-24T00:05:13Z)
• Fairness by Explicability and Adversarial SHAP Learning [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that emphasises the role of an external auditor and model explicability. We develop a framework for mitigating model bias using regularizations constructed from the SHAP values of an adversarial surrogate model. We demonstrate our approaches using gradient and adaptive boosting on: a synthetic dataset, the UCI Adult (Census) dataset and a real-world credit scoring dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-11T14:36:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.