We introduce a new family of techniques to post-process ("wrap") a black-box classifier in order to reduce its bias. Our technique builds on the recent analysis of improper loss functions whose optimisation can correct any twist in prediction, unfairness being treated as a twist. In the post-processing, we learn a wrapper function which we define as an {\alpha}-tree, which modifies the prediction. We provide two generic boosting algorithms to learn {\alpha}-trees. We show that our modification has appealing properties in terms of composition of{\alpha}-trees, generalization, interpretability, and KL divergence between modified and original predictions. We exemplify the use of our technique in three fairness notions: conditional value at risk, equality of opportunity, and statistical parity; and provide experiments on several readily available datasets.
相關內容
Interactive machine learning (IML) is a field of research that explores how to leverage both human and computational abilities in decision making systems. IML represents a collaboration between multiple complementary human and machine intelligent systems working as a team, each with their own unique abilities and limitations. This teamwork might mean that both systems take actions at the same time, or in sequence. Two major open research questions in the field of IML are: "How should we design systems that can learn to make better decisions over time with human interaction?" and "How should we evaluate the design and deployment of such systems?" A lack of appropriate consideration for the humans involved can lead to problematic system behaviour, and issues of fairness, accountability, and transparency. Thus, our goal with this work is to present a human-centred guide to designing and evaluating IML systems while mitigating risks. This guide is intended to be used by machine learning practitioners who are responsible for the health, safety, and well-being of interacting humans. An obligation of responsibility for public interaction means acting with integrity, honesty, fairness, and abiding by applicable legal statutes. With these values and principles in mind, we as a machine learning research community can better achieve goals of augmenting human skills and abilities. This practical guide therefore aims to support many of the responsible decisions necessary throughout the iterative design, development, and dissemination of IML systems.
Given its status as a classic problem and its importance to both theoreticians and practitioners, edit distance provides an excellent lens through which to understand how the theoretical analysis of algorithms impacts practical implementations. From an applied perspective, the goals of theoretical analysis are to predict the empirical performance of an algorithm and to serve as a yardstick to design novel algorithms that perform well in practice. In this paper, we systematically survey the types of theoretical analysis techniques that have been applied to edit distance and evaluate the extent to which each one has achieved these two goals. These techniques include traditional worst-case analysis, worst-case analysis parametrized by edit distance or entropy or compressibility, average-case analysis, semi-random models, and advice-based models. We find that the track record is mixed. On one hand, two algorithms widely used in practice have been born out of theoretical analysis and their empirical performance is captured well by theoretical predictions. On the other hand, all the algorithms developed using theoretical analysis as a yardstick since then have not had any practical relevance. We conclude by discussing the remaining open problems and how they can be tackled.
The link prediction task on knowledge graphs without explicit negative triples in the training data motivates the usage of rank-based metrics. Here, we review existing rank-based metrics and propose desiderata for improved metrics to address lack of interpretability and comparability of existing metrics to datasets of different sizes and properties. We introduce a simple theoretical framework for rank-based metrics upon which we investigate two avenues for improvements to existing metrics via alternative aggregation functions and concepts from probability theory. We finally propose several new rank-based metrics that are more easily interpreted and compared accompanied by a demonstration of their usage in a benchmarking of knowledge graph embedding models.
Epistemic uncertainty is the part of out-of-sample prediction error due to the lack of knowledge of the learner. Whereas previous work was focusing on model variance, we propose a principled approach for directly estimating epistemic uncertainty by learning to predict generalization error and subtracting an estimate of aleatoric uncertainty, i.e., intrinsic unpredictability. This estimator of epistemic uncertainty includes the effect of model bias (or misspecification) and is useful in interactive learning environments arising in active learning or reinforcement learning. In addition to discussing these properties of Direct Epistemic Uncertainty Prediction (DEUP), we illustrate its advantage against existing methods for uncertainty estimation on downstream tasks including sequential model optimization and reinforcement learning. We also evaluate the quality of uncertainty estimates from DEUP for probabilistic classification of images and for estimating uncertainty about synergistic drug combinations.
Data collection and research methodology represents a critical part of the research pipeline. On the one hand, it is important that we collect data in a way that maximises the validity of what we are measuring, which may involve the use of long scales with many items. On the other hand, collecting a large number of items across multiple scales results in participant fatigue, and expensive and time consuming data collection. It is therefore important that we use the available resources optimally. In this work, we consider how a consideration for theory and the associated causal/structural model can help us to streamline data collection procedures by not wasting time collecting data for variables which are not causally critical for subsequent analysis. This not only saves time and enables us to redirect resources to attend to other variables which are more important, but also increases research transparency and the reliability of theory testing. In order to achieve this streamlined data collection, we leverage structural models, and Markov conditional independency structures implicit in these models to identify the substructures which are critical for answering a particular research question. In this work, we review the relevant concepts and present a number of didactic examples with the hope that psychologists can use these techniques to streamline their data collection process without invalidating the subsequent analysis. We provide a number of simulation results to demonstrate the limited analytical impact of this streamlining.
Existing inferential methods for small area data involve a trade-off between maintaining area-level frequentist coverage rates and improving inferential precision via the incorporation of indirect information. In this article, we propose a method to obtain an area-level prediction region for a future observation which mitigates this trade-off. The proposed method takes a conformal prediction approach in which the conformity measure is the posterior predictive density of a working model that incorporates indirect information. The resulting prediction region has guaranteed frequentist coverage regardless of the working model, and, if the working model assumptions are accurate, the region has minimum expected volume compared to other regions with the same coverage rate. When constructed under a normal working model, we prove such a prediction region is an interval and construct an efficient algorithm to obtain the exact interval. We illustrate the performance of our method through simulation studies and an application to EPA radon survey data.
Due to their increasing spread, confidence in neural network predictions became more and more important. However, basic neural networks do not deliver certainty estimates or suffer from over or under confidence. Many researchers have been working on understanding and quantifying uncertainty in a neural network's prediction. As a result, different types and sources of uncertainty have been identified and a variety of approaches to measure and quantify uncertainty in neural networks have been proposed. This work gives a comprehensive overview of uncertainty estimation in neural networks, reviews recent advances in the field, highlights current challenges, and identifies potential research opportunities. It is intended to give anyone interested in uncertainty estimation in neural networks a broad overview and introduction, without presupposing prior knowledge in this field. A comprehensive introduction to the most crucial sources of uncertainty is given and their separation into reducible model uncertainty and not reducible data uncertainty is presented. The modeling of these uncertainties based on deterministic neural networks, Bayesian neural networks, ensemble of neural networks, and test-time data augmentation approaches is introduced and different branches of these fields as well as the latest developments are discussed. For a practical application, we discuss different measures of uncertainty, approaches for the calibration of neural networks and give an overview of existing baselines and implementations. Different examples from the wide spectrum of challenges in different fields give an idea of the needs and challenges regarding uncertainties in practical applications. Additionally, the practical limitations of current methods for mission- and safety-critical real world applications are discussed and an outlook on the next steps towards a broader usage of such methods is given.
This paper focuses on the expected difference in borrower's repayment when there is a change in the lender's credit decisions. Classical estimators overlook the confounding effects and hence the estimation error can be magnificent. As such, we propose another approach to construct the estimators such that the error can be greatly reduced. The proposed estimators are shown to be unbiased, consistent, and robust through a combination of theoretical analysis and numerical testing. Moreover, we compare the power of estimating the causal quantities between the classical estimators and the proposed estimators. The comparison is tested across a wide range of models, including linear regression models, tree-based models, and neural network-based models, under different simulated datasets that exhibit different levels of causality, different degrees of nonlinearity, and different distributional properties. Most importantly, we apply our approaches to a large observational dataset provided by a global technology firm that operates in both the e-commerce and the lending business. We find that the relative reduction of estimation error is strikingly substantial if the causal effects are accounted for correctly.
Interest in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence has been growing for decades and has accelerated recently. As Artificial Intelligence models have become more complex, and often more opaque, with the incorporation of complex machine learning techniques, explainability has become more critical. Recently, researchers have been investigating and tackling explainability with a user-centric focus, looking for explanations to consider trustworthiness, comprehensibility, explicit provenance, and context-awareness. In this chapter, we leverage our survey of explanation literature in Artificial Intelligence and closely related fields and use these past efforts to generate a set of explanation types that we feel reflect the expanded needs of explanation for today's artificial intelligence applications. We define each type and provide an example question that would motivate the need for this style of explanation. We believe this set of explanation types will help future system designers in their generation and prioritization of requirements and further help generate explanations that are better aligned to users' and situational needs.
Explainable recommendation attempts to develop models that generate not only high-quality recommendations but also intuitive explanations. The explanations may either be post-hoc or directly come from an explainable model (also called interpretable or transparent model in some context). Explainable recommendation tries to address the problem of why: by providing explanations to users or system designers, it helps humans to understand why certain items are recommended by the algorithm, where the human can either be users or system designers. Explainable recommendation helps to improve the transparency, persuasiveness, effectiveness, trustworthiness, and satisfaction of recommendation systems. In this survey, we review works on explainable recommendation in or before the year of 2019. We first highlight the position of explainable recommendation in recommender system research by categorizing recommendation problems into the 5W, i.e., what, when, who, where, and why. We then conduct a comprehensive survey of explainable recommendation on three perspectives: 1) We provide a chronological research timeline of explainable recommendation, including user study approaches in the early years and more recent model-based approaches. 2) We provide a two-dimensional taxonomy to classify existing explainable recommendation research: one dimension is the information source (or display style) of the explanations, and the other dimension is the algorithmic mechanism to generate explainable recommendations. 3) We summarize how explainable recommendation applies to different recommendation tasks, such as product recommendation, social recommendation, and POI recommendation. We also devote a section to discuss the explanation perspectives in broader IR and AI/ML research. We end the survey by discussing potential future directions to promote the explainable recommendation research area and beyond.
小貼士
登錄享
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191