mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

To what extent should we trust AI models when they extrapolate?

arXiv 2201.11260 ↗First posted 27 Jan 2022cs.LG cs.AI math.OCcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many applications affecting human lives rely on models that have come to be known under the umbrella of machine learning and artificial intelligence. These AI models are usually complicated mathematical functions that map from an input space to an output space. Stakeholders are interested to know the rationales behind models' decisions and functional behavior. We study this functional behavior in relation to the data used to create the models. On this topic, scholars have often assumed that models do not extrapolate, i.e., they learn from their training samples and process new input by interpolation. This assumption is questionable: we show that models extrapolate frequently; the extent of extrapolation varies and can be socially consequential. We demonstrate that extrapolation happens for a substantial portion of datasets more than one would consider reasonable. How can we trust models if we do not know whether they are extrapolating? Given a model trained to recommend clinical procedures for patients, can we trust the recommendation when the model considers a patient older or younger than all the samples in the training set? If the training set is mostly Whites, to what extent can we trust its recommendations about Black and Hispanic patients? Which dimension (race, gender, or age) does extrapolation happen? Even if a model is trained on people of all races, it still may extrapolate in significant ways related to race. The leading question is, to what extent can we trust AI models when they process inputs that fall outside their training set? This paper investigates several social applications of AI, showing how models extrapolate without notice. We also look at different sub-spaces of extrapolation for specific individuals subject to AI models and report how these extrapolations can be interpreted, not mathematically, but from a humanistic point of view.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jan 2022.

Builds on

16 of 59 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  3. 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
  4. 2020Out-of-Distribution Generalization via Risk Extrapolation (REx)cited by 737
  5. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  6. 2020How Neural Networks Extrapolate: From Feedforward to Graph Neural Networkscited by 218
  7. 2021Learning in High Dimension Always Amounts to Extrapolationcited by 62
  8. 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
  9. 2015Interpretable Classification Models for Recidivism Predictioncited by 44
  10. 2020Learning Representations that Support Extrapolationcited by 36
  11. 2020A survey of bias in Machine Learning through the prism of Statistical Parity for the Adult Data Setcited by 35
  12. 2018An Interpretable Model with Globally Consistent Explanations for Credit Riskcited by 33
4 more
  1. 2021A Holistic Approach to Interpretability in Financial Lending: Models, Visualizations, and Summary-Explanationscited by 16
  2. 2015Sparse Approximation via Generating Point Setscited by 9
  3. 2021Extrapolation Frameworks in Cognitive Psychology Suitable for Study of Image Classification Modelscited by 4
  4. 2017Approximate Convex Hull of Data Streamscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1.

1 paper.