Example-based Explanations for Random Forests using Machine Unlearning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2024.
Builds on
25 of 52 references.
References · 25
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,020
- 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 970
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 617
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
13 more
- 2019Making AI Forget You: Data Deletion in Machine Learningcited by 447
- 2018Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 179
- 2021Adaptive Machine Unlearningcited by 164
- 2021Graph Unlearningcited by 129
- 2021Machine Unlearning via Algorithmic Stabilitycited by 128
- 2020Machine Unlearning for Random Forestscited by 125
- 2019On Second-Order Group Influence Functions for Black-Box Predictionscited by 78
- 2018Automated Data Slicing for Model Validation:A Big data - AI Integration Approachcited by 70
- 2021Explaining Black-Box Algorithms Using Probabilistic Contrastive Counterfactualscited by 55
- 2021Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debuggingcited by 30
- 2020Complaint-driven Training Data Debugging for Query 2.0cited by 16
- 2022Control, Confidentiality, and the Right to be Forgottencited by 8
- 2020BugDoc: Algorithms to Debug Computational Processescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.