skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods
As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there is growing emphasis on building tools and techniques for explaining these black boxes in an interpretable manner. Such explanations are being leveraged by domain experts to diagnose systematic errors and underlying biases of black boxes. In this paper, we demonstrate that post hoc explanations techniques that rely on input perturbations, such as LIME and SHAP, are not reliable. Specifically, we propose a novel scaffolding technique that effectively hides the biases of any given classifier by allowing an adversarial entity to craft an arbitrary desired explanation. Our approach can be used to scaffold any biased classifier in such a way that its predictions on the input data distribution still remain biased, but the post hoc explanations of the scaffolded classifier look innocuous. Using extensive evaluation with multiple real world datasets (including COMPAS), we demonstrate how extremely biased (racist) classifiers crafted by our framework can easily fool popular explanation techniques such as LIME and SHAP into generating innocuous explanations which do not reflect the underlying biases.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1756023
NSF-PAR ID:
10166400
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
180 to 186
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML))
    null (Ed.)
    As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in critical domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there has been a growing emphasis on developing techniques for explaining these black boxes in a post hoc manner. In this work, we analyze two popular post hoc interpretation techniques: SmoothGrad which is a gradient based method, and a variant of LIME which is a perturbation based method. More specifically, we derive explicit closed form expressions for the explanations output by these two methods and show that they both converge to the same explanation in expectation, i.e., when the number of perturbed samples used by these methods is large. We then leverage this connection to establish other desirable properties, such as robustness, for these techniques. We also derive finite sample complexity bounds for the number of perturbations required for these methods to converge to their expected explanation. Finally, we empirically validate our theory using extensive experimentation on both synthetic and real world datasets. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ( , International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2021))
    While machine learning classifier models become more widely adopted, opaque “black-box” models remain mostly inscrutable for a variety of reasons. Since their applications increasingly involve decisions impacting the lives of humans, there is increasing demand that their predictions be understandable to humans. Of particular interest in eXplainable AI (XAI) is the interpretability of explanations, i.e., that a model’s prediction should be understandable in terms of the input features. One popular approach is LIME, which offers a model-agnostic framework for explaining any classifier. However, questions remain about the limitations and vulnerabilities of such post-hoc explainers. We have built a tool for generating synthetic tabular data sets which enables us to probe the explanation system opportunistically based on its architecture. In this paper, we report on our success in revealing a scenario where LIME’s explanation violates local faithfulness. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ( , KDD '21: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining)
    null (Ed.)
    An increasing number of machine learning models have been deployed in domains with high stakes such as finance and healthcare. Despite their superior performances, many models are black boxes in nature which are hard to explain. There are growing efforts for researchers to develop methods to interpret these black-box models. Post hoc explanations based on perturbations, such as LIME [39], are widely used approaches to interpret a machine learning model after it has been built. This class of methods has been shown to exhibit large instability, posing serious challenges to the effectiveness of the method itself and harming user trust. In this paper, we propose S-LIME, which utilizes a hypothesis testing framework based on central limit theorem for determining the number of perturbation points needed to guarantee stability of the resulting explanation. Experiments on both simulated and real world data sets are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ( , Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems)
    Abstract

    With increasing interest in explaining machine learning (ML) models, this paper synthesizes many topics related to ML explainability. We distinguish explainability from interpretability, local from global explainability, and feature importance versus feature relevance. We demonstrate and visualize different explanation methods, how to interpret them, and provide a complete Python package (scikit-explain) to allow future researchers and model developers to explore these explainability methods. The explainability methods include Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), Shapley additive global explanation (SAGE), and accumulated local effects (ALE). Our focus is primarily on Shapley-based techniques, which serve as a unifying framework for various existing methods to enhance model explainability. For example, SHAP unifies methods like local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) and tree interpreter for local explainability, while SAGE unifies the different variations of permutation importance for global explainability. We provide a short tutorial for explaining ML models using three disparate datasets: a convection-allowing model dataset for severe weather prediction, a nowcasting dataset for subfreezing road surface prediction, and satellite-based data for lightning prediction. In addition, we showcase the adverse effects that correlated features can have on the explainability of a model. Finally, we demonstrate the notion of evaluating model impacts of feature groups instead of individual features. Evaluating the feature groups mitigates the impacts of feature correlations and can provide a more holistic understanding of the model. All code, models, and data used in this study are freely available to accelerate the adoption of machine learning explainability in the atmospheric and other environmental sciences.

     
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society)
    null (Ed.)
    Feature attributions and counterfactual explanations are popular approaches to explain a ML model. The former assigns an importance score to each input feature, while the latter provides input examples with minimal changes to alter the model's predictions. To unify these approaches, we provide an interpretation based on the actual causality framework and present two key results in terms of their use. First, we present a method to generate feature attribution explanations from a set of counterfactual examples. These feature attributions convey how important a feature is to changing the classification outcome of a model, especially on whether a subset of features is necessary and/or sufficient for that change, which attribution-based methods are unable to provide. Second, we show how counterfactual examples can be used to evaluate the goodness of an attribution-based explanation in terms of its necessity and sufficiency. As a result, we highlight the complimentary of these two approaches. Our evaluation on three benchmark datasets --- Adult-Income, LendingClub, and German-Credit --- confirms the complimentary. Feature attribution methods like LIME and SHAP and counterfactual explanation methods like Wachter et al. and DiCE often do not agree on feature importance rankings. In addition, by restricting the features that can be modified for generating counterfactual examples, we find that the top-k features from LIME or SHAP are often neither necessary nor sufficient explanations of a model's prediction. Finally, we present a case study of different explanation methods on a real-world hospital triage problem. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email