[go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3580305.3599343acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Feature-based Learning for Diverse and Privacy-Preserving Counterfactual Explanations

Published: 04 August 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Interpretable machine learning seeks to understand the reasoning process of complex black-box systems that are long notorious for lack of explainability. One flourishing approach is through counterfactual explanations, which provide suggestions on what a user can do to alter an outcome. Not only must a counterfactual example counter the original prediction from the black-box classifier but it should also satisfy various constraints for practical applications. Diversity is one of the critical constraints that however remains less discussed. While diverse counterfactuals are ideal, it is computationally challenging to simultaneously address some other constraints. Furthermore, there is a growing privacy concern over the released counterfactual data. To this end, we propose a feature-based learning framework that effectively handles the counterfactual constraints and contributes itself to the limited pool of private explanation models. We demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of our method in generating diverse counterfactuals of actionability and plausibility. Our counterfactual engine is more efficient than counterparts of the same capacity while yielding the lowest re-identification risks.

Supplementary Material

MOV File (rtfp0302-2min-promo.mov)
Nowadays, numerous companies utilize machine learning-powered systems to automatically screen the resumes of countless applicants. Imagine submitting your resume to your dream job, only to receive a rejection. You find yourself puzzled, contemplating what more you could have done to enhance your chances of success. This is where explainable AI proves invaluable. Its objective is to shed light on the inner workings of a black-box ML system, with counterfactual explanations specifically aiming to offer actionable suggestions that can potentially alter the decision outcome generated by such a black-box system. However, a pertinent question arises: how can we place our trust in a system that often remains opaque itself? Our video offers insights into this very question.

References

[1]
Mohan S Acharya, Asfia Armaan, and Aneeta S Antony. 2019. A comparison of regression models for prediction of graduate admissions. In 2019 international conference on computational intelligence in data science (ICCIDS). IEEE, 1--5.
[2]
Ulrich Aïvodji, Alexandre Bolot, and Sébastien Gambs. 2020. Model extraction from counterfactual explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01884 (2020).
[3]
Ifeoma Ajunwa, Sorelle Friedler, Carlos E Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2016. Hiring by algorithm: predicting and preventing disparate impact. Available at SSRN 2746078 (2016).
[4]
Leo Breiman, Jerome H Friedman, Richard A Olshen, and Charles J Stone. 2017. Classification and regression trees. Routledge.
[5]
Ngoc Bui, Duy Nguyen, and Viet Anh Nguyen. 2022. Counterfactual Plans under Distributional Ambiguity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12487 (2022).
[6]
Bogdan S Chlebus and Sinh Hoa Nguyen. 1998. On finding optimal discretizations for two attributes. In International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing. Springer, 537--544.
[7]
Paulo Cortez and Alice Maria Gonçalves Silva. 2008. Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. (2008).
[8]
Susanne Dandl, Christoph Molnar, Martin Binder, and Bernd Bischl. 2020. Multiobjective counterfactual explanations. In International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Springer, 448--469.
[9]
Michael Downs, Jonathan L Chu, Yaniv Yacoby, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Weiwei Pan. 2020. Cruds: Counterfactual recourse using disentangled subspaces. ICML WHI 2020 (2020), 1--23.
[10]
Dheeru Dua and Casey Graff. 2017. UCI Machine Learning Repository. http: //archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
[11]
Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of cryptography conference. Springer, 265--284.
[12]
Khaled El Emam and Fida Kamal Dankar. 2008. Protecting privacy using kanonymity. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15, 5 (2008), 627--637.
[13]
Usama Fayyad and Keki Irani. 1993. Multi-interval discretization of continuousvalued attributes for classification learning. (1993).
[14]
Badih Ghazi, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar, and Pasin Manurangsi. 2022. Faster Privacy Accounting via Evolving Discretization. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 7470--7483.
[15]
Richard Gifford. 2018. Legal technology: Criminal justice algorithms: Ai in the courtroom. Proctor, The 38, 1 (2018), 32--33.
[16]
Sofie Goethals, Kenneth Sörensen, and David Martens. 2022. The privacy issue of counterfactual explanations: explanation linkage attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12051 (2022).
[17]
Sivakanth Gopi, Yin Tat Lee, and Lukas Wutschitz. 2021. Numerical composition of differential privacy. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 11631--11642.
[18]
Riccardo Guidotti. 2022. Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2022), 1--55.
[19]
Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 (2016).
[20]
Amir-Hossein Karimi, Gilles Barthe, Borja Balle, and Isabel Valera. 2020. Modelagnostic counterfactual explanations for consequential decisions. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 895--905.
[21]
Amir-Hossein Karimi, Gilles Barthe, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Isabel Valera. 2020. A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04050 (2020).
[22]
Amir-Hossein Karimi, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Isabel Valera. 2021. Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 353--362.
[23]
Jack Klys, Jake Snell, and Richard Zemel. 2018. Learning latent subspaces in variational autoencoders. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018).
[24]
Ron Kohavi et al. 1996. Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid. In Kdd, Vol. 96. 202--207.
[25]
Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar, et al. 2012. Determinantal point processes for machine learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 5, 2--3 (2012), 123--286.
[26]
Stefan Lessmann, Bart Baesens, Hsin-Vonn Seow, and Lyn C Thomas. 2015. Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring: An update of research. European Journal of Operational Research 247, 1 (2015), 124--136.
[27]
Ana Lucic, Harrie Oosterhuis, Hinda Haned, and Maarten de Rijke. 2022. FOCUS: Flexible optimizable counterfactual explanations for tree ensembles. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 5313--5322.
[28]
Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Daniel Kifer, Johannes Gehrke, and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam. 2007. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 1, 1 (2007), 3--es.
[29]
Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. 2016. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712 (2016).
[30]
Divyat Mahajan, Chenhao Tan, and Amit Sharma. 2019. Preserving causal constraints in counterfactual explanations for machine learning classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03277 (2019).
[31]
Ricardo Mendes and João P Vilela. 2017. Privacy-preserving data mining: methods, metrics, and applications. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 10562--10582.
[32]
Smitha Milli, Ludwig Schmidt, Anca D Dragan, and Moritz Hardt. 2019. Model reconstruction from model explanations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1--9.
[33]
Ramaravind K Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. 2020. Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 607--617.
[34]
Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2006. How to break anonymity of the netflix prize dataset. arXiv preprint cs/0610105 (2006).
[35]
Son H Nguyen and Andrzej Skowron. 1995. Quantization of real value attributes rough set and boolean reasoning approach. In Proc. of the Second Joint Annual Conference on Information Sciences, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, Sept 28-Oct 1. Citeseer.
[36]
Van Nguyen, Trung Le, Olivier De Vel, Paul Montague, John Grundy, and Dinh Phung. 2021. Information-theoretic source code vulnerability highlighting. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1--8.
[37]
Van Nguyen, Trung Le, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, John Grundy, Hung Nguyen, Seyit Camtepe, Paul Quirk, and Dinh Phung. 2022. An Information-Theoretic and Contrastive Learning-based Approach for Identifying Code Statements Causing Software Vulnerability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10414 (2022).
[38]
Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2020. Learning modelagnostic counterfactual explanations for tabular data. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 3126--3132.
[39]
Sergio Ramírez-Gallego, Salvador García, Héctor Mouriño-Talín, David Martínez- Rego, Verónica Bolón-Canedo, Amparo Alonso-Betanzos, José Manuel Benítez, and Francisco Herrera. 2016. Data discretization: taxonomy and big data challenge. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 6, 1 (2016), 5--21.
[40]
Annabelle Redelmeier, Martin Jullum, Kjersti Aas, and Anders Løland. 2021. MCCE: Monte Carlo sampling of realistic counterfactual explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09790 (2021).
[41]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1135--1144.
[42]
Jorma Rissanen. 1978. Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica 14, 5 (1978), 465--471.
[43]
Chris Russell. 2019. Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 20--28.
[44]
Pierangela Samarati and Latanya Sweeney. 1998. Protecting privacy when disclosing information: k-anonymity and its enforcement through generalization and suppression. (1998).
[45]
Shubham Sharma, Jette Henderson, and Joydeep Ghosh. 2020. Certifai: A common framework to provide explanations and analyse the fairness and robustness of black-box models. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 166--172.
[46]
Reza Shokri, Martin Strobel, and Yair Zick. 2021. On the privacy risks of model explanations. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 231--241.
[47]
Reza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2017. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, 3--18.
[48]
Kacper Sokol and Peter A Flach. 2019. Counterfactual explanations of machine learning predictions: opportunities and challenges for AI safety. SafeAI@ AAAI (2019).
[49]
Richard S Sutton, David McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. Advances in neural information processing systems 12 (1999).
[50]
Latanya Sweeney. 2000. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Health (San Francisco) 671, 2000 (2000), 1--34.
[51]
Sahil Verma, John Dickerson, and Keegan Hines. 2020. Counterfactual explanations for machine learning: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596 (2020).
[52]
Sahil Verma, Keegan Hines, and John P Dickerson. 2022. Amortized Generation of Sequential Algorithmic Recourses for Black-Box Models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 8512--8519.
[53]
Vy Vo, Van Nguyen, Trung Le, Quan Hung Tran, Reza Haf, Seyit Camtepe, and Dinh Phung. 2023. An Additive Instance-Wise Approach to Multi-class Model Interpretation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=5OygDd-4Eeh
[54]
Austin Waters and Risto Miikkulainen. 2014. Grade: Machine learning support for graduate admissions. Ai Magazine 35, 1 (2014), 64--64.
[55]
Yongxin Yang, Irene Garcia Morillo, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2018. Deep neural decision trees. ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning. (2018).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)ReLax: Efficient and Scalable Recourse Explanation Benchmarking using JAXJournal of Open Source Software10.21105/joss.065679:103(6567)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • (2024)Recommending Graduate Admission Using Ensemble Model2024 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Applications (ICCICA)10.1109/ICCICA60014.2024.10584593(526-530)Online publication date: 23-May-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
KDD '23: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
August 2023
5996 pages
ISBN:9798400701030
DOI:10.1145/3580305
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 August 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. algorithmic recourse
  2. explainable ai
  3. privacy

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

KDD '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 916 of 6,452 submissions, 14%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)400
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)ReLax: Efficient and Scalable Recourse Explanation Benchmarking using JAXJournal of Open Source Software10.21105/joss.065679:103(6567)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • (2024)Recommending Graduate Admission Using Ensemble Model2024 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Applications (ICCICA)10.1109/ICCICA60014.2024.10584593(526-530)Online publication date: 23-May-2024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media