FreaAI: Automated extraction of data slices to test machine learning models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning (ML) solutions are prevalent. However, many challenges exist in making these solutions business-grade. One major challenge is to ensure that the ML solution provides its expected business value. In order to do that, one has to bridge the gap between the way ML model performance is measured and the solution requirements. In previous work (Barash et al, "Bridging the gap...") we demonstrated the effectiveness of utilizing feature models in bridging this gap. Whereas ML performance metrics, such as the accuracy or F1-score of a classifier, typically measure the average ML performance, feature models shed light on explainable data slices that are too far from that average, and therefore might indicate unsatisfied requirements. For example, the overall accuracy of a bank text terms classifier may be very high, say 98% ± 2%, yet it might perform poorly for terms that include short descriptions and originate from commercial accounts. A business requirement, which may be implicit in the training data, may be to perform well regardless of the type of account and length of the description. Therefore, the under-performing data slice that includes short descriptions and commercial accounts suggests poorly-met requirements. In this paper we show the feasibility of automatically extracting feature models that result in explainable data slices over which the ML solution under-performs. Our novel technique, IBM FreaAI aka FreaAI, extracts such slices from structured ML test data or any other labeled data. We demonstrate that FreaAI can automatically produce explainable and statistically-significant data slices over seven open datasets.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2021.
Builds on
0 of 14 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 3; 2023: 4.
10 papers.
- 2022Systematic Training and Testing for Machine Learning Using Combinatorial Interaction Testingcited by 6
- 2022Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challengescited by 4
- 2023Test & Evaluation Best Practices for Machine Learning-Enabled Systemscited by 3
- 2021Density-based interpretable hypercube region partitioning for mixed numeric and categorical datacited by 1
- 2021Detecting model drift using polynomial relationscited by 1
- 2021Classifier Data Quality: A Geometric Complexity Based Method for Automated Baseline And Insights Generationcited by 0
- 2022Theory and Practice of Quality Assurance for Machine Learning Systems An Experiment Driven Approachcited by 0
- 2023Metric Learning Improves the Ability of Combinatorial Coverage Metrics to Anticipate Classification Errorcited by 0
- 2023Automatic Generation of Attention Rules For Containment of Machine Learning Model Errorscited by 0
- 2023Distribution-aware Fairness Test Generationcited by 0
- 2023Test & Evaluation Best Practices for Machine Learning-Enabled Systems10 Oct 2023
- 2023Automatic Generation of Attention Rules For Containment of Machine Learning Model Errors14 May 2023
- 2023Distribution-aware Fairness Test Generation8 May 2023
- 2023Metric Learning Improves the Ability of Combinatorial Coverage Metrics to Anticipate Classification Error28 Feb 2023
- 2022Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges13 Sep 2022
- 2022Systematic Training and Testing for Machine Learning Using Combinatorial Interaction Testing28 Jan 2022
- 2022Theory and Practice of Quality Assurance for Machine Learning Systems An Experiment Driven Approach2 Jan 2022
- 2021Classifier Data Quality: A Geometric Complexity Based Method for Automated Baseline And Insights Generation22 Dec 2021
- 2021Detecting model drift using polynomial relations24 Oct 2021
- 2021Density-based interpretable hypercube region partitioning for mixed numeric and categorical data11 Oct 2021