Machine Learning (ML) software has been widely adopted in modern society, with reported fairness implications for minority groups based on race, sex, age, etc. Many recent works have proposed methods to measure and mitigate algorithmic bias in ML models. The existing approaches focus on single classifier-based ML models. However, real-world ML models are often composed of multiple independent or dependent learners in an ensemble (e.g., Random Forest), where the fairness composes in a non-trivial way. How does fairness compose in ensembles? What are the fairness impacts of the learners on the ultimate fairness of the ensemble? Can fair learners result in an unfair ensemble? Furthermore, studies have shown that hyperparameters influence the fairness of ML models. Ensemble hyperparameters are more complex since they affect how learners are combined in different categories of ensembles. Understanding the impact of ensemble hyperparameters on fairness will help programmers design fair ensembles. Today, we do not understand these fully for different ensemble algorithms. In this paper, we comprehensively study popular real-world ensembles: bagging, boosting, stacking and voting. We have developed a benchmark of 168 ensemble models collected from Kaggle on four popular fairness datasets. We use existing fairness metrics to understand the composition of fairness. Our results show that ensembles can be designed to be fairer without using mitigation techniques. We also identify the interplay between fairness composition and data characteristics to guide fair ensemble design. Finally, our benchmark can be leveraged for further research on fair ensembles. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first and largest studies on fairness composition in ensembles yet presented in the literature.
相關內容
Software bias is an increasingly important operational concern for software engineers. We present a large-scale, comprehensive empirical study of 17 representative bias mitigation methods for Machine Learning (ML) classifiers, evaluated with 11 ML performance metrics (e.g., accuracy), 4 fairness metrics, and 20 types of fairness-performance trade-off assessment, applied to 8 widely-adopted software decision tasks. The empirical coverage is much more comprehensive, covering the largest numbers of bias mitigation methods, evaluation metrics, and fairness-performance trade-off measures compared to previous work on this important software property. We find that (1) the bias mitigation methods significantly decrease ML performance in 53% of the studied scenarios (ranging between 42%~66% according to different ML performance metrics); (2) the bias mitigation methods significantly improve fairness measured by the 4 used metrics in 46% of all the scenarios (ranging between 24%~59% according to different fairness metrics); (3) the bias mitigation methods even lead to decrease in both fairness and ML performance in 25% of the scenarios; (4) the effectiveness of the bias mitigation methods depends on tasks, models, the choice of protected attributes, and the set of metrics used to assess fairness and ML performance; (5) there is no bias mitigation method that can achieve the best trade-off in all the scenarios. The best method that we find outperforms other methods in 30% of the scenarios. Researchers and practitioners need to choose the bias mitigation method best suited to their intended application scenario(s).
A good teaching method is incomprehensible for an autistic child. The autism spectrum disorder is a very diverse phenomenon. It is said that no two autistic children are the same. So, something that works for one child may not be fit for another. The same case is true for their education. Different children need to be approached with different teaching methods. But it is quite hard to identify the appropriate teaching method. As the term itself explains, the autism spectrum disorder is like a spectrum. There are multiple factors to determine the type of autism of a child. A child might even be diagnosed with autism at the age of 9. Such a varied group of children of different ages, but specialized educational institutions still tend to them more or less the same way. This is where machine learning techniques can be applied to find a better way to identify a suitable teaching method for each of them. By analyzing their physical, verbal and behavioral performance, the proper teaching method can be suggested much more precisely compared to a diagnosis result. As a result, more children with autistic spectrum disorder can get better education that suits their needs the best.
With the rapid growth of machine learning, deep neural networks (DNNs) are now being used in numerous domains. Unfortunately, DNNs are "black-boxes", and cannot be interpreted by humans, which is a substantial concern in safety-critical systems. To mitigate this issue, researchers have begun working on explainable AI (XAI) methods, which can identify a subset of input features that are the cause of a DNN's decision for a given input. Most existing techniques are heuristic, and cannot guarantee the correctness of the explanation provided. In contrast, recent and exciting attempts have shown that formal methods can be used to generate provably correct explanations. Although these methods are sound, the computational complexity of the underlying verification problem limits their scalability; and the explanations they produce might sometimes be overly complex. Here, we propose a novel approach to tackle these limitations. We (1) suggest an efficient, verification-based method for finding minimal explanations, which constitute a provable approximation of the global, minimum explanation; (2) show how DNN verification can assist in calculating lower and upper bounds on the optimal explanation; (3) propose heuristics that significantly improve the scalability of the verification process; and (4) suggest the use of bundles, which allows us to arrive at more succinct and interpretable explanations. Our evaluation shows that our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques, and produces explanations that are more useful to humans. We thus regard this work as a step toward leveraging verification technology in producing DNNs that are more reliable and comprehensible.
Resistance distance has been studied extensively in the past years, with the majority of previous studies devoted to undirected networks, in spite of the fact that various realistic networks are directed. Although several generalizations of resistance distance on directed graphs have been proposed, they either have no physical interpretation or are not a metric. In this paper, we first extend the definition of resistance distance to strongly connected directed graphs based on random walks and show that the two-node resistance distance on directed graphs is a metric. Then, we introduce the Laplacian matrix for directed graphs that subsumes the Laplacian matrix of undirected graphs as a particular case and use its pseudoinverse to express the two-node resistance distance, and many other relevant quantities derived from resistance distances. Moreover, we define the resistance distance between a vertex and a vertex group on directed graphs and further define a problem of optimally selecting a group of fixed number of nodes, such that their resistance distance is minimized. Since this combinatorial optimization problem is NP-hard, we present a greedy algorithm with a proved approximation ratio, and conduct experiments on model and realistic networks to validate the performance of this approximation algorithm.
Reliability of machine learning evaluation -- the consistency of observed evaluation scores across replicated model training runs -- is affected by several sources of nondeterminism which can be regarded as measurement noise. Current tendencies to remove noise in order to enforce reproducibility of research results neglect inherent nondeterminism at the implementation level and disregard crucial interaction effects between algorithmic noise factors and data properties. This limits the scope of conclusions that can be drawn from such experiments. Instead of removing noise, we propose to incorporate several sources of variance, including their interaction with data properties, into an analysis of significance and reliability of machine learning evaluation, with the aim to draw inferences beyond particular instances of trained models. We show how to use linear mixed effects models (LMEMs) to analyze performance evaluation scores, and to conduct statistical inference with a generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT). This allows us to incorporate arbitrary sources of noise like meta-parameter variations into statistical significance testing, and to assess performance differences conditional on data properties. Furthermore, a variance component analysis (VCA) enables the analysis of the contribution of noise sources to overall variance and the computation of a reliability coefficient by the ratio of substantial to total variance.
Multimodality Representation Learning, as a technique of learning to embed information from different modalities and their correlations, has achieved remarkable success on a variety of applications, such as Visual Question Answering (VQA), Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR), and Vision Language Retrieval (VLR). Among these applications, cross-modal interaction and complementary information from different modalities are crucial for advanced models to perform any multimodal task, e.g., understand, recognize, retrieve, or generate optimally. Researchers have proposed diverse methods to address these tasks. The different variants of transformer-based architectures performed extraordinarily on multiple modalities. This survey presents the comprehensive literature on the evolution and enhancement of deep learning multimodal architectures to deal with textual, visual and audio features for diverse cross-modal and modern multimodal tasks. This study summarizes the (i) recent task-specific deep learning methodologies, (ii) the pretraining types and multimodal pretraining objectives, (iii) from state-of-the-art pretrained multimodal approaches to unifying architectures, and (iv) multimodal task categories and possible future improvements that can be devised for better multimodal learning. Moreover, we prepare a dataset section for new researchers that covers most of the benchmarks for pretraining and finetuning. Finally, major challenges, gaps, and potential research topics are explored. A constantly-updated paperlist related to our survey is maintained at //github.com/marslanm/multimodality-representation-learning.
Over recent years, there has been a rapid development of deep learning (DL) in both industry and academia fields. However, finding the optimal hyperparameters of a DL model often needs high computational cost and human expertise. To mitigate the above issue, evolutionary computation (EC) as a powerful heuristic search approach has shown significant merits in the automated design of DL models, so-called evolutionary deep learning (EDL). This paper aims to analyze EDL from the perspective of automated machine learning (AutoML). Specifically, we firstly illuminate EDL from machine learning and EC and regard EDL as an optimization problem. According to the DL pipeline, we systematically introduce EDL methods ranging from feature engineering, model generation, to model deployment with a new taxonomy (i.e., what and how to evolve/optimize), and focus on the discussions of solution representation and search paradigm in handling the optimization problem by EC. Finally, key applications, open issues and potentially promising lines of future research are suggested. This survey has reviewed recent developments of EDL and offers insightful guidelines for the development of EDL.
Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine-learning-based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently-proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.
Deep Learning algorithms have achieved the state-of-the-art performance for Image Classification and have been used even in security-critical applications, such as biometric recognition systems and self-driving cars. However, recent works have shown those algorithms, which can even surpass the human capabilities, are vulnerable to adversarial examples. In Computer Vision, adversarial examples are images containing subtle perturbations generated by malicious optimization algorithms in order to fool classifiers. As an attempt to mitigate these vulnerabilities, numerous countermeasures have been constantly proposed in literature. Nevertheless, devising an efficient defense mechanism has proven to be a difficult task, since many approaches have already shown to be ineffective to adaptive attackers. Thus, this self-containing paper aims to provide all readerships with a review of the latest research progress on Adversarial Machine Learning in Image Classification, however with a defender's perspective. Here, novel taxonomies for categorizing adversarial attacks and defenses are introduced and discussions about the existence of adversarial examples are provided. Further, in contrast to exisiting surveys, it is also given relevant guidance that should be taken into consideration by researchers when devising and evaluating defenses. Finally, based on the reviewed literature, it is discussed some promising paths for future research.
Machine-learning models have demonstrated great success in learning complex patterns that enable them to make predictions about unobserved data. In addition to using models for prediction, the ability to interpret what a model has learned is receiving an increasing amount of attention. However, this increased focus has led to considerable confusion about the notion of interpretability. In particular, it is unclear how the wide array of proposed interpretation methods are related, and what common concepts can be used to evaluate them. We aim to address these concerns by defining interpretability in the context of machine learning and introducing the Predictive, Descriptive, Relevant (PDR) framework for discussing interpretations. The PDR framework provides three overarching desiderata for evaluation: predictive accuracy, descriptive accuracy and relevancy, with relevancy judged relative to a human audience. Moreover, to help manage the deluge of interpretation methods, we introduce a categorization of existing techniques into model-based and post-hoc categories, with sub-groups including sparsity, modularity and simulatability. To demonstrate how practitioners can use the PDR framework to evaluate and understand interpretations, we provide numerous real-world examples. These examples highlight the often under-appreciated role played by human audiences in discussions of interpretability. Finally, based on our framework, we discuss limitations of existing methods and directions for future work. We hope that this work will provide a common vocabulary that will make it easier for both practitioners and researchers to discuss and choose from the full range of interpretation methods.
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