Automated Trustworthiness Testing for Machine Learning Classifiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05251v1
• Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:25:05 GMT
• Title: Automated Trustworthiness Testing for Machine Learning Classifiers
• Authors: Steven Cho, Seaton Cousins-Baxter, Stefano Ruberto, Valerio Terragni,
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes TOWER, the first technique to automatically create trustworthiness oracles that determine whether text classifier predictions are trustworthy. Our hypothesis is that a prediction is trustworthy if the words in its explanation are semantically related to the predicted class. The results show that TOWER can detect a decrease in trustworthiness as noise increases, but is not effective when evaluated against the human-labeled dataset.
• Score: 3.3423762257383207
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine Learning (ML) has become an integral part of our society, commonly used in critical domains such as finance, healthcare, and transportation. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate not only whether ML models make correct predictions but also whether they do so for the correct reasons, ensuring our trust that will perform well on unseen data. This concept is known as trustworthiness in ML. Recently, explainable techniques (e.g., LIME, SHAP) have been developed to interpret the decision-making processes of ML models, providing explanations for their predictions (e.g., words in the input that influenced the prediction the most). Assessing the plausibility of these explanations can enhance our confidence in the models' trustworthiness. However, current approaches typically rely on human judgment to determine the plausibility of these explanations. This paper proposes TOWER, the first technique to automatically create trustworthiness oracles that determine whether text classifier predictions are trustworthy. It leverages word embeddings to automatically evaluate the trustworthiness of a model-agnostic text classifiers based on the outputs of explanatory techniques. Our hypothesis is that a prediction is trustworthy if the words in its explanation are semantically related to the predicted class. We perform unsupervised learning with untrustworthy models obtained from noisy data to find the optimal configuration of TOWER. We then evaluated TOWER on a human-labeled trustworthiness dataset that we created. The results show that TOWER can detect a decrease in trustworthiness as noise increases, but is not effective when evaluated against the human-labeled dataset. Our initial experiments suggest that our hypothesis is valid and promising, but further research is needed to better understand the relationship between explanations and trustworthiness issues.

Related papers

• Automated Trustworthiness Oracle Generation for Machine Learning Text Classifiers [9.349442247982557]
  Traditional metrics, such as model confidence and accuracy, are insufficient to build human trust in machine learning models. We propose TOKI, which automatically checks whether the prediction-contributing words are related to the predicted class. We also introduce a novel adversarial attack method targeting trustworthiness issues identified by TOKI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T03:26:37Z)
• 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)
• Birds of a Feather Trust Together: Knowing When to Trust a Classifier via Adaptive Neighborhood Aggregation [30.34223543030105]
  We show how NeighborAgg can leverage the two essential information via an adaptive neighborhood aggregation. We also extend our approach to the closely related task of mislabel detection and provide a theoretical coverage guarantee to bound the false negative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T18:43:15Z)
• Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
  UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously. Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)
• Learning Confidence for Transformer-based Neural Machine Translation [38.679505127679846]
  We propose an unsupervised confidence estimate learning jointly with the training of the neural machine translation (NMT) model. We explain confidence as how many hints the NMT model needs to make a correct prediction, and more hints indicate low confidence. We demonstrate that our learned confidence estimate achieves high accuracy on extensive sentence/word-level quality estimation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-22T01:51:58Z)
• Conformal prediction for the design problem [72.14982816083297]
  In many real-world deployments of machine learning, we use a prediction algorithm to choose what data to test next. In such settings, there is a distinct type of distribution shift between the training and test data. We introduce a method to quantify predictive uncertainty in such settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T02:59:12Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performance [63.740181251997306]
  Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-11T23:01:12Z)
• Learning to Predict Trustworthiness with Steep Slope Loss [69.40817968905495]
  We study the problem of predicting trustworthiness on real-world large-scale datasets. We observe that the trustworthiness predictors trained with prior-art loss functions are prone to view both correct predictions and incorrect predictions to be trustworthy. We propose a novel steep slope loss to separate the features w.r.t. correct predictions from the ones w.r.t. incorrect predictions by two slide-like curves that oppose each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T19:19:09Z)
• MACEst: The reliable and trustworthy Model Agnostic Confidence Estimator [0.17188280334580192]
  We argue that any confidence estimates based upon standard machine learning point prediction algorithms are fundamentally flawed. We present MACEst, a Model Agnostic Confidence Estimator, which provides reliable and trustworthy confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T14:34:06Z)
• An evaluation of word-level confidence estimation for end-to-end automatic speech recognition [70.61280174637913]
  We investigate confidence estimation for end-to-end automatic speech recognition (ASR) We provide an extensive benchmark of popular confidence methods on four well-known speech datasets. Our results suggest a strong baseline can be obtained by scaling the logits by a learnt temperature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-14T09:51:59Z)
• Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shift [19.327409270934474]
  We describe procedures for robust predictive inference, where a model provides uncertainty estimates on its predictions rather than point predictions. We present a method that produces prediction sets (almost exactly) giving the right coverage level for any test distribution in an $f$-divergence ball around the training population. An essential component of our methodology is to estimate the amount of expected future data shift and build robustness to it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-10T17:09:16Z)

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.