Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling (Technical Report)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15097v2
• Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:02:24 GMT
• Title: Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling (Technical Report)
• Authors: Junqi Jiang, Antonio Rago, Francesco Leofante, Francesca Toni
• Abstract summary: We name recourse-aware ensembling, and identify several desirable properties which methods for solving it should satisfy. We show theoretically and experimentally that argumentative ensembling satisfies properties which the existing methods lack, and that the trade-offs are minimal wrt accuracy.
• Score: 17.429631079094186
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Model Multiplicity (MM) arises when multiple, equally performing machine learning models can be trained to solve the same prediction task. Recent studies show that models obtained under MM may produce inconsistent predictions for the same input. When this occurs, it becomes challenging to provide counterfactual explanations (CEs), a common means for offering recourse recommendations to individuals negatively affected by models' predictions. In this paper, we formalise this problem, which we name recourse-aware ensembling, and identify several desirable properties which methods for solving it should satisfy. We show that existing ensembling methods, naturally extended in different ways to provide CEs, fail to satisfy these properties. We then introduce argumentative ensembling, deploying computational argumentation to guarantee robustness of CEs to MM, while also accommodating customisable user preferences. We show theoretically and experimentally that argumentative ensembling satisfies properties which the existing methods lack, and that the trade-offs are minimal wrt accuracy.

Related papers

• Reconciling Predictive Multiplicity in Practice [43.74883617124773]
  Reconcile is a reconciliation procedure to address the model multiplicity (MM) phenomenon. In this paper, we empirically analyze the Reconcile algorithm using five widely-used fairness datasets. We extend the Reconcile algorithm to the setting of causal inference, given that different competing estimators can again disagree on specific causal average treatment effect (CATE) values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T22:48:20Z)
• Revisiting SMoE Language Models by Evaluating Inefficiencies with Task Specific Expert Pruning [78.72226641279863]
  Sparse Mixture of Expert (SMoE) models have emerged as a scalable alternative to dense models in language modeling. Our research explores task-specific model pruning to inform decisions about designing SMoE architectures. We introduce an adaptive task-aware pruning technique UNCURL to reduce the number of experts per MoE layer in an offline manner post-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-02T22:35:03Z)
• 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)
• Variational Inference of Parameters in Opinion Dynamics Models [9.51311391391997]
  This work uses variational inference to estimate the parameters of an opinion dynamics ABM. We transform the inference process into an optimization problem suitable for automatic differentiation. Our approach estimates both macroscopic (bounded confidence intervals and backfire thresholds) and microscopic ($200$ categorical, agent-level roles) more accurately than simulation-based and MCMC methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T14:45:18Z)
• Predictive Churn with the Set of Good Models [64.05949860750235]
  We study the effect of conflicting predictions over the set of near-optimal machine learning models. We present theoretical results on the expected churn between models within the Rashomon set. We show how our approach can be used to better anticipate, reduce, and avoid churn in consumer-facing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:15:25Z)
• Coverage-Validity-Aware Algorithmic Recourse [21.642948522310782]
  We propose a novel framework to generate a model-agnostic recourse that exhibits robustness to model shifts. Our framework first builds a coverage-validity-aware linear surrogate of the nonlinear (black-box) model. We show that our surrogate pushes the approximate hyperplane intuitively, facilitating not only robust but also interpretable recourses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T15:21:49Z)
• Surrogate Likelihoods for Variational Annealed Importance Sampling [11.144915453864854]
  We introduce a surrogate likelihood that can be learned jointly with other variational parameters. We show that our method performs well in practice and that it is well-suited for black-box inference in probabilistic programming frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-22T19:49:45Z)
• Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable Explanations [64.85696493596821]
  In computer vision applications, generative counterfactual methods indicate how to perturb a model's input to change its prediction. We propose a counterfactual method that learns a perturbation in a disentangled latent space that is constrained using a diversity-enforcing loss. Our model improves the success rate of producing high-quality valuable explanations when compared to previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-18T12:57:34Z)
• Accounting for Unobserved Confounding in Domain Generalization [107.0464488046289]
  This paper investigates the problem of learning robust, generalizable prediction models from a combination of datasets. Part of the challenge of learning robust models lies in the influence of unobserved confounders. We demonstrate the empirical performance of our approach on healthcare data from different modalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-21T08:18:06Z)
• Learning Invariances for Interpretability using Supervised VAE [0.0]
  We learn model invariances as a means of interpreting a model. We propose a supervised form of variational auto-encoders (VAEs) We show how combining our model with feature attribution methods it is possible to reach a more fine-grained understanding about the decision process of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-15T10:14:16Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

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.