MobileAIBench: Benchmarking LLMs and LMMs for On-Device Use Cases

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) on mobile devices has gained significant attention due to the benefits of enhanced privacy, stability, and personalization. However, the hardware constraints of mobile devices necessitate the use of models with fewer parameters and model compression techniques like quantization. Currently, there is limited understanding of quantization's impact on various task performances, including LLM tasks, LMM tasks, and, critically, trust and safety. There is a lack of adequate tools for systematically testing these models on mobile devices. To address these gaps, we introduce MobileAIBench, a comprehensive benchmarking framework for evaluating mobile-optimized LLMs and LMMs. MobileAIBench assesses models across different sizes, quantization levels, and tasks, measuring latency and resource consumption on real devices. Our two-part open-source framework includes a library for running evaluations on desktops and an iOS app for on-device latency and hardware utilization measurements. Our thorough analysis aims to accelerate mobile AI research and deployment by providing insights into the performance and feasibility of deploying LLMs and LMMs on mobile platforms.

Error Discovery by Clustering Influence Embeddings

We present a method for identifying groups of test examples -- slices -- on which a model under-performs, a task now known as slice discovery. We formalize coherence -- a requirement that erroneous predictions, within a slice, should be wrong for the same reason -- as a key property that any slice discovery method should satisfy. We then use influence functions to derive a new slice discovery method, InfEmbed, which satisfies coherence by returning slices whose examples are influenced similarly by the training data. InfEmbed is simple, and consists of applying K-Means clustering to a novel representation we deem influence embeddings. We show InfEmbed outperforms current state-of-the-art methods on 2 benchmarks, and is effective for model debugging across several case studies.

Missing Values and Imputation in Healthcare Data: Can Interpretable Machine Learning Help?

Missing values are a fundamental problem in data science. Many datasets have missing values that must be properly handled because the way missing values are treated can have large impact on the resulting machine learning model. In medical applications, the consequences may affect healthcare decisions. There are many methods in the literature for dealing with missing values, including state-of-the-art methods which often depend on black-box models for imputation. In this work, we show how recent advances in interpretable machine learning provide a new perspective for understanding and tackling the missing value problem. We propose methods based on high-accuracy glass-box Explainable Boosting Machines (EBMs) that can help users (1) gain new insights on missingness mechanisms and better understand the causes of missingness, and (2) detect -- or even alleviate -- potential risks introduced by imputation algorithms. Experiments on real-world medical datasets illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Practical Policy Optimization with Personalized Experimentation

Many organizations measure treatment effects via an experimentation platform to evaluate the casual effect of product variations prior to full-scale deployment. However, standard experimentation platforms do not perform optimally for end user populations that exhibit heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs). Here we present a personalized experimentation framework, Personalized Experiments (PEX), which optimizes treatment group assignment at the user level via HTE modeling and sequential decision policy optimization to optimize multiple short-term and long-term outcomes simultaneously. We describe an end-to-end workflow that has proven to be successful in practice and can be readily implemented using open-source software.

Efficient Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation With Multiple Experiments and Multiple Outcomes

Learning heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is an important problem across many fields. Most existing methods consider the setting with a single treatment arm and a single outcome metric. However, in many real world domains, experiments are run consistently - for example, in internet companies, A/B tests are run every day to measure the impacts of potential changes across many different metrics of interest. We show that even if an analyst cares only about the HTEs in one experiment for one metric, precision can be improved greatly by analyzing all of the data together to take advantage of cross-experiment and cross-outcome metric correlations. We formalize this idea in a tensor factorization framework and propose a simple and scalable model which we refer to as the low rank or LR-learner. Experiments in both synthetic and real data suggest that the LR-learner can be much more precise than independent HTE estimation.

Distilling Heterogeneity: From Explanations of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Models to Interpretable Policies

Internet companies are increasingly using machine learning models to create personalized policies which assign, for each individual, the best predicted treatment for that individual. They are frequently derived from black-box heterogeneous treatment effect (HTE) models that predict individual-level treatment effects. In this paper, we focus on (1) learning explanations for HTE models; (2) learning interpretable policies that prescribe treatment assignments. We also propose guidance trees, an approach to ensemble multiple interpretable policies without the loss of interpretability. These rule-based interpretable policies are easy to deploy and avoid the need to maintain a HTE model in a production environment.

How Interpretable and Trustworthy are GAMs?

Generalized additive models (GAMs) have become a leading model class for data bias discovery and model auditing. However, there are a variety of algorithms for training GAMs, and these do not always learn the same things. Statisticians originally used splines to train GAMs, but more recently GAMs are being trained with boosted decision trees. It is unclear which GAM model(s) to believe, particularly when their explanations are contradictory. In this paper, we investigate a variety of different GAM algorithms both qualitatively and quantitatively on real and simulated datasets. Our results suggest that inductive bias plays a crucial role in model explanations and tree-based GAMs are to be recommended for the kinds of problems and dataset sizes we worked with.

Purifying Interaction Effects with the Functional ANOVA: An Efficient Algorithm for Recovering Identifiable Additive Models

Recent methods for training generalized additive models (GAMs) with pairwise interactions achieve state-of-the-art accuracy on a variety of datasets. Adding interactions to GAMs, however, introduces an identifiability problem: effects can be freely moved between main effects and interaction effects without changing the model predictions. In some cases, this can lead to contradictory interpretations of the same underlying function. This is a critical problem because a central motivation of GAMs is model interpretability. In this paper, we use the Functional ANOVA decomposition to uniquely define interaction effects and thus produce identifiable additive models with purified interactions. To compute this decomposition, we present a fast, exact, mass-moving algorithm that transforms any piecewise-constant function (such as a tree-based model) into a purified, canonical representation. We apply this algorithm to several datasets and show large disparity, including contradictions, between the apparent and the purified effects.

"Why Should You Trust My Explanation?" Understanding Uncertainty in LIME Explanations

Methods for interpreting machine learning black-box models increase the outcomes' transparency and in turn generates insight into the reliability and fairness of the algorithms. However, the interpretations themselves could contain significant uncertainty that undermines the trust in the outcomes and raises concern about the model's reliability. Focusing on the method "Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations" (LIME), we demonstrate the presence of two sources of uncertainty, namely the randomness in its sampling procedure and the variation of interpretation quality across different input data points. Such uncertainty is present even in models with high training and test accuracy. We apply LIME to synthetic data and two public data sets, text classification in 20 Newsgroup and recidivism risk-scoring in COMPAS, to support our argument.

Interpretability is Harder in the Multiclass Setting: Axiomatic Interpretability for Multiclass Additive Models

Generalized additive models (GAMs) are favored in many regression and binary classification problems because they are able to fit complex, nonlinear functions while still remaining interpretable. In the first part of this paper, we generalize a state-of-the-art GAM learning algorithm based on boosted trees to the multiclass setting, and show that this multiclass algorithm outperforms existing GAM fitting algorithms and sometimes matches the performance of full complex models. In the second part, we turn our attention to the interpretability of GAMs in the multiclass setting. Surprisingly, the natural interpretability of GAMs breaks down when there are more than two classes. Drawing inspiration from binary GAMs, we identify two axioms that any additive model must satisfy to not be visually misleading. We then develop a post-processing technique (API) that provably transforms pretrained additive models to satisfy the interpretability axioms without sacrificing accuracy. The technique works not just on models trained with our algorithm, but on any multiclass additive model. We demonstrate API on a 12-class infant-mortality dataset.