mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Function Composition in Trustworthy Machine Learning: Implementation Choices, Insights, and Questions

arXiv 2302.09190 ↗First posted 17 Feb 2023cs.LG cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring trustworthiness in machine learning (ML) models is a multi-dimensional task. In addition to the traditional notion of predictive performance, other notions such as privacy, fairness, robustness to distribution shift, adversarial robustness, interpretability, explainability, and uncertainty quantification are important considerations to evaluate and improve (if deficient). However, these sub-disciplines or 'pillars' of trustworthiness have largely developed independently, which has limited us from understanding their interactions in real-world ML pipelines. In this paper, focusing specifically on compositions of functions arising from the different pillars, we aim to reduce this gap, develop new insights for trustworthy ML, and answer questions such as the following. Does the composition of multiple fairness interventions result in a fairer model compared to a single intervention? How do bias mitigation algorithms for fairness affect local post-hoc explanations? Does a defense algorithm for untargeted adversarial attacks continue to be effective when composed with a privacy transformation? Toward this end, we report initial empirical results and new insights from 9 different compositions of functions (or pipelines) on 7 real-world datasets along two trustworthy dimensions - fairness and explainability. We also report progress, and implementation choices, on an extensible composer tool to encourage the combination of functionalities from multiple pillars. To-date, the tool supports bias mitigation algorithms for fairness and post-hoc explainability methods. We hope this line of work encourages the thoughtful consideration of multiple pillars when attempting to formulate and resolve a trustworthiness problem.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2023.

Builds on

32 of 55 references.

References · 32

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  4. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  5. 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,832
  6. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  7. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  8. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  9. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
  10. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  11. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  12. 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
20 more
  1. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  2. 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 156
  3. 2018Is Robustness the Cost of Accuracy? -- A Comprehensive Study on the Robustness of 18 Deep Image Classification Modelscited by 135
  4. 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 125
  5. 2020Adversarial Robustness on In- and Out-Distribution Improves Explainabilitycited by 73
  6. 2020Differentially Private Representation for NLP: Formal Guarantee and An Empirical Study on Privacy and Fairnesscited by 66
  7. 2018A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunitycited by 53
  8. 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
  9. 2020Robustness May Be at Odds with Fairness: An Empirical Study on Class-wise Accuracycited by 45
  10. 2019Model Agnostic Contrastive Explanations for Structured Datacited by 41
  11. 2020dalex: Responsible Machine Learning with Interactive Explainability and Fairness in Pythoncited by 40
  12. 2020Explainability for fair machine learningcited by 33
  13. 2020Fairness and Robustness in Invariant Learning: A Case Study in Toxicity Classificationcited by 32
  14. 2018Active Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Makingcited by 27
  15. 2022Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learningcited by 23
  16. 2021Uncertainty Quantification 360: A Holistic Toolkit for Quantifying and Communicating the Uncertainty of AIcited by 22
  17. 2022An Empirical Study on Explanations in Out-of-Domain Settingscited by 21
  18. 2019FairPrep: Promoting Data to a First-Class Citizen in Studies on Fairness-Enhancing Interventionscited by 13
  19. 2022An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensemblescited by 6
  20. 2021An Empirical Study of Accuracy, Fairness, Explainability, Distributional Robustness, and Adversarial Robustnesscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.