Verified Training for Counterfactual Explanation Robustness under Data Shift

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) enhance the interpretability of machine learning models by describing what changes to an input are necessary to change its prediction to a desired class. These explanations are commonly used to guide users' actions, e.g., by describing how a user whose loan application was denied can be approved for a loan in the future. Existing approaches generate CEs by focusing on a single, fixed model, and do not provide any formal guarantees on the CEs' future validity. When models are updated periodically to account for data shift, if the generated CEs are not robust to the shifts, users' actions may no longer have the desired impacts on their predictions. This paper introduces VeriTraCER, an approach that jointly trains a classifier and an explainer to explicitly consider the robustness of the generated CEs to small model shifts. VeriTraCER optimizes over a carefully designed loss function that ensures the verifiable robustness of CEs to local model updates, thus providing deterministic guarantees to CE validity. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that VeriTraCER generates CEs that (1) are verifiably robust to small model updates and (2) display competitive robustness to state-of-the-art approaches in handling empirical model updates including random initialization, leave-one-out, and distribution shifts.

The Dataset Multiplicity Problem: How Unreliable Data Impacts Predictions

We introduce dataset multiplicity, a way to study how inaccuracies, uncertainty, and social bias in training datasets impact test-time predictions. The dataset multiplicity framework asks a counterfactual question of what the set of resultant models (and associated test-time predictions) would be if we could somehow access all hypothetical, unbiased versions of the dataset. We discuss how to use this framework to encapsulate various sources of uncertainty in datasets' factualness, including systemic social bias, data collection practices, and noisy labels or features. We show how to exactly analyze the impacts of dataset multiplicity for a specific model architecture and type of uncertainty: linear models with label errors. Our empirical analysis shows that real-world datasets, under reasonable assumptions, contain many test samples whose predictions are affected by dataset multiplicity. Furthermore, the choice of domain-specific dataset multiplicity definition determines what samples are affected, and whether different demographic groups are disparately impacted. Finally, we discuss implications of dataset multiplicity for machine learning practice and research, including considerations for when model outcomes should not be trusted.

PECAN: A Deterministic Certified Defense Against Backdoor Attacks

Neural networks are vulnerable to backdoor poisoning attacks, where the attackers maliciously poison the training set and insert triggers into the test input to change the prediction of the victim model. Existing defenses for backdoor attacks either provide no formal guarantees or come with expensive-to-compute and ineffective probabilistic guarantees. We present PECAN, an efficient and certified approach for defending against backdoor attacks. The key insight powering PECAN is to apply off-the-shelf test-time evasion certification techniques on a set of neural networks trained on disjoint partitions of the data. We evaluate PECAN on image classification and malware detection datasets. Our results demonstrate that PECAN can (1) significantly outperform the state-of-the-art certified backdoor defense, both in defense strength and efficiency, and (2) on real back-door attacks, PECAN can reduce attack success rate by order of magnitude when compared to a range of baselines from the literature.

Certifying Data-Bias Robustness in Linear Regression

Datasets typically contain inaccuracies due to human error and societal biases, and these inaccuracies can affect the outcomes of models trained on such datasets. We present a technique for certifying whether linear regression models are pointwise-robust to label bias in the training dataset, i.e., whether bounded perturbations to the labels of a training dataset result in models that change the prediction of test points. We show how to solve this problem exactly for individual test points, and provide an approximate but more scalable method that does not require advance knowledge of the test point. We extensively evaluate both techniques and find that linear models -- both regression- and classification-based -- often display high levels of bias-robustness. However, we also unearth gaps in bias-robustness, such as high levels of non-robustness for certain bias assumptions on some datasets. Overall, our approach can serve as a guide for when to trust, or question, a model's output.

BagFlip: A Certified Defense against Data Poisoning

Machine learning models are vulnerable to data-poisoning attacks, in which an attacker maliciously modifies the training set to change the prediction of a learned model. In a trigger-less attack, the attacker can modify the training set but not the test inputs, while in a backdoor attack the attacker can also modify test inputs. Existing model-agnostic defense approaches either cannot handle backdoor attacks or do not provide effective certificates (i.e., a proof of a defense). We present BagFlip, a model-agnostic certified approach that can effectively defend against both trigger-less and backdoor attacks. We evaluate BagFlip on image classification and malware detection datasets. BagFlip is equal to or more effective than the state-of-the-art approaches for trigger-less attacks and more effective than the state-of-the-art approaches for backdoor attacks.

Certifying Robustness to Programmable Data Bias in Decision Trees

Datasets can be biased due to societal inequities, human biases, under-representation of minorities, etc. Our goal is to certify that models produced by a learning algorithm are pointwise-robust to potential dataset biases. This is a challenging problem: it entails learning models for a large, or even infinite, number of datasets, ensuring that they all produce the same prediction. We focus on decision-tree learning due to the interpretable nature of the models. Our approach allows programmatically specifying bias models across a variety of dimensions (e.g., missing data for minorities), composing types of bias, and targeting bias towards a specific group. To certify robustness, we use a novel symbolic technique to evaluate a decision-tree learner on a large, or infinite, number of datasets, certifying that each and every dataset produces the same prediction for a specific test point. We evaluate our approach on datasets that are commonly used in the fairness literature, and demonstrate our approach's viability on a range of bias models.

Certified Robustness to Programmable Transformations in LSTMs

Deep neural networks for natural language processing are fragile in the face of adversarial examples--small input perturbations, like synonym substitution or word duplication, which cause a neural network to change its prediction. We present an approach to certifying the robustness of LSTMs (and extensions of LSTMs) and training models that can be efficiently certified. Our approach can certify robustness to intractably large perturbation spaces defined programmatically in a language of string transformations. The key insight of our approach is an application of abstract interpretation that exploits recursive LSTM structure to incrementally propagate symbolic sets of inputs, compactly representing a large perturbation space. Our evaluation shows that (1) our approach can train models that are more robust to combinations of string transformations than those produced using existing techniques; (2) our approach can show high certification accuracy of the resulting models.

Robustness to Programmable String Transformations via Augmented Abstract Training

Deep neural networks for natural language processing tasks are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. In this paper, we present a versatile language for programmatically specifying string transformations -- e.g., insertions, deletions, substitutions, swaps, etc. -- that are relevant to the task at hand. We then present an approach to adversarially training models that are robust to such user-defined string transformations. Our approach combines the advantages of search-based techniques for adversarial training with abstraction-based techniques. Specifically, we show how to decompose a set of user-defined string transformations into two component specifications, one that benefits from search and another from abstraction. We use our technique to train models on the AG and SST2 datasets and show that the resulting models are robust to combinations of user-defined transformations mimicking spelling mistakes and other meaning-preserving transformations.

Proving Data-Poisoning Robustness in Decision Trees

Machine learning models are brittle, and small changes in the training data can result in different predictions. We study the problem of proving that a prediction is robust to data poisoning, where an attacker can inject a number of malicious elements into the training set to influence the learned model. We target decision-tree models, a popular and simple class of machine learning models that underlies many complex learning techniques. We present a sound verification technique based on abstract interpretation and implement it in a tool called Antidote. Antidote abstractly trains decision trees for an intractably large space of possible poisoned datasets. Due to the soundness of our abstraction, Antidote can produce proofs that, for a given input, the corresponding prediction would not have changed had the training set been tampered with or not. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Antidote on a number of popular datasets.

Quantifying Program Bias

With the range and sensitivity of algorithmic decisions expanding at a break-neck speed, it is imperative that we aggressively investigate whether programs are biased. We propose a novel probabilistic program analysis technique and apply it to quantifying bias in decision-making programs. Specifically, we (i) present a sound and complete automated verification technique for proving quantitative properties of probabilistic programs; (ii) show that certain notions of bias, recently proposed in the fairness literature, can be phrased as quantitative correctness properties; and (iii) present FairSquare, the first verification tool for quantifying program bias, and evaluate it on a range of decision-making programs.