-
DTOR: Decision Tree Outlier Regressor to explain anomalies
Authors:
Riccardo Crupi,
Daniele Regoli,
Alessandro Damiano Sabatino,
Immacolata Marano,
Massimiliano Brinis,
Luca Albertazzi,
Andrea Cirillo,
Andrea Claudio Cosentini
Abstract:
Explaining outliers occurrence and mechanism of their occurrence can be extremely important in a variety of domains. Malfunctions, frauds, threats, in addition to being correctly identified, oftentimes need a valid explanation in order to effectively perform actionable counteracts. The ever more widespread use of sophisticated Machine Learning approach to identify anomalies make such explanations…
▽ More
Explaining outliers occurrence and mechanism of their occurrence can be extremely important in a variety of domains. Malfunctions, frauds, threats, in addition to being correctly identified, oftentimes need a valid explanation in order to effectively perform actionable counteracts. The ever more widespread use of sophisticated Machine Learning approach to identify anomalies make such explanations more challenging. We present the Decision Tree Outlier Regressor (DTOR), a technique for producing rule-based explanations for individual data points by estimating anomaly scores generated by an anomaly detection model. This is accomplished by first applying a Decision Tree Regressor, which computes the estimation score, and then extracting the relative path associated with the data point score. Our results demonstrate the robustness of DTOR even in datasets with a large number of features. Additionally, in contrast to other rule-based approaches, the generated rules are consistently satisfied by the points to be explained. Furthermore, our evaluation metrics indicate comparable performance to Anchors in outlier explanation tasks, with reduced execution time.
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 2024; v1 submitted 16 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Investigating Bias with a Synthetic Data Generator: Empirical Evidence and Philosophical Interpretation
Authors:
Alessandro Castelnovo,
Riccardo Crupi,
Nicole Inverardi,
Daniele Regoli,
Andrea Cosentini
Abstract:
Machine learning applications are becoming increasingly pervasive in our society. Since these decision-making systems rely on data-driven learning, risk is that they will systematically spread the bias embedded in data. In this paper, we propose to analyze biases by introducing a framework for generating synthetic data with specific types of bias and their combinations. We delve into the nature of…
▽ More
Machine learning applications are becoming increasingly pervasive in our society. Since these decision-making systems rely on data-driven learning, risk is that they will systematically spread the bias embedded in data. In this paper, we propose to analyze biases by introducing a framework for generating synthetic data with specific types of bias and their combinations. We delve into the nature of these biases discussing their relationship to moral and justice frameworks. Finally, we exploit our proposed synthetic data generator to perform experiments on different scenarios, with various bias combinations. We thus analyze the impact of biases on performance and fairness metrics both in non-mitigated and mitigated machine learning models.
△ Less
Submitted 13 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space
Authors:
Riccardo Crupi,
Alessandro Castelnovo,
Daniele Regoli,
Beatriz San Miguel Gonzalez
Abstract:
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a set of techniques that allows the understanding of both technical and non-technical aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. XAI is crucial to help satisfying the increasingly important demand of \emph{trustworthy} Artificial Intelligence, characterized by fundamental characteristics such as respect of human autonomy, prevention of harm, trans…
▽ More
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a set of techniques that allows the understanding of both technical and non-technical aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. XAI is crucial to help satisfying the increasingly important demand of \emph{trustworthy} Artificial Intelligence, characterized by fundamental characteristics such as respect of human autonomy, prevention of harm, transparency, accountability, etc. Within XAI techniques, counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features (and their corresponding values) that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations, and in particular they fall short of considering the causal impact of such actions. In this paper, we present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations capturing by design the underlying causal relations from the data, and at the same time to provide feasible recommendations to reach the proposed profile. Moreover, our methodology has the advantage that it can be set on top of existing counterfactuals generator algorithms, thus minimising the complexity of imposing additional causal constrains. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with a set of different experiments using synthetic and real datasets (including a proprietary dataset of the financial domain).
△ Less
Submitted 8 November, 2021; v1 submitted 14 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscape
Authors:
Alessandro Castelnovo,
Riccardo Crupi,
Greta Greco,
Daniele Regoli,
Ilaria Giuseppina Penco,
Andrea Claudio Cosentini
Abstract:
In recent years, the problem of addressing fairness in Machine Learning (ML) and automatic decision-making has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific communities dealing with Artificial Intelligence. A plethora of different definitions of fairness in ML have been proposed, that consider different notions of what is a "fair decision" in situations impacting individuals in the population. Th…
▽ More
In recent years, the problem of addressing fairness in Machine Learning (ML) and automatic decision-making has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific communities dealing with Artificial Intelligence. A plethora of different definitions of fairness in ML have been proposed, that consider different notions of what is a "fair decision" in situations impacting individuals in the population. The precise differences, implications and "orthogonality" between these notions have not yet been fully analyzed in the literature. In this work, we try to make some order out of this zoo of definitions.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2022; v1 submitted 1 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
