Example-based Explanations for Random Forests using Machine Unlearning

Tree-based machine learning models, such as decision trees and random forests, have been hugely successful in classification tasks primarily because of their predictive power in supervised learning tasks and ease of interpretation. Despite their popularity and power, these models have been found to produce unexpected or discriminatory outcomes. Given their overwhelming success for most tasks, it is of interest to identify sources of their unexpected and discriminatory behavior. However, there has not been much work on understanding and debugging tree-based classifiers in the context of fairness. We introduce FairDebugger, a system that utilizes recent advances in machine unlearning research to identify training data subsets responsible for instances of fairness violations in the outcomes of a random forest classifier. FairDebugger generates top-$k$ explanations (in the form of coherent training data subsets) for model unfairness. Toward this goal, FairDebugger first utilizes machine unlearning to estimate the change in the tree structures of the random forest when parts of the underlying training data are removed, and then leverages the Apriori algorithm from frequent itemset mining to reduce the subset search space. We empirically evaluate our approach on three real-world datasets, and demonstrate that the explanations generated by FairDebugger are consistent with insights from prior studies on these datasets.

Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debugging

A wide variety of fairness metrics and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches have been proposed in the literature to identify bias in machine learning models that are used in critical real-life contexts. However, merely reporting on a model's bias, or generating explanations using existing XAI techniques is insufficient to locate and eventually mitigate sources of bias. In this work, we introduce Gopher, a system that produces compact, interpretable, and causal explanations for bias or unexpected model behavior by identifying coherent subsets of the training data that are root-causes for this behavior. Specifically, we introduce the concept of causal responsibility that quantifies the extent to which intervening on training data by removing or updating subsets of it can resolve the bias. Building on this concept, we develop an efficient approach for generating the top-k patterns that explain model bias that utilizes techniques from the ML community to approximate causal responsibility and uses pruning rules to manage the large search space for patterns. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of Gopher in generating interpretable explanations for identifying and debugging sources of bias.

Explaining Black-Box Algorithms Using Probabilistic Contrastive Counterfactuals

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) that aims to reduce the opaqueness of AI-based decision-making systems, allowing humans to scrutinize and trust them. Prior work in this context has focused on the attribution of responsibility for an algorithm's decisions to its inputs wherein responsibility is typically approached as a purely associational concept. In this paper, we propose a principled causality-based approach for explaining black-box decision-making systems that addresses limitations of existing methods in XAI. At the core of our framework lies probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals, a concept that can be traced back to philosophical, cognitive, and social foundations of theories on how humans generate and select explanations. We show how such counterfactuals can quantify the direct and indirect influences of a variable on decisions made by an algorithm, and provide actionable recourse for individuals negatively affected by the algorithm's decision. Unlike prior work, our system, LEWIS: (1)can compute provably effective explanations and recourse at local, global and contextual levels (2)is designed to work with users with varying levels of background knowledge of the underlying causal model and (3)makes no assumptions about the internals of an algorithmic system except for the availability of its input-output data. We empirically evaluate LEWIS on three real-world datasets and show that it generates human-understandable explanations that improve upon state-of-the-art approaches in XAI, including the popular LIME and SHAP. Experiments on synthetic data further demonstrate the correctness of LEWIS's explanations and the scalability of its recourse algorithm.