Black-Box Anomaly Attribution

Overview

• When a black-box machine learning model makes a prediction that differs from the true observation, the reason for this deviation could be due to a sub-optimal model or the sample being an outlier.
• Ideally, one would want to obtain an "attribution score" that indicates the extent to which each input variable is responsible for the anomaly.
• This paper proposes a novel "likelihood compensation (LC)" framework to address this "anomaly attribution" task when the model is black-box and the training data are not available.

Plain English Explanation

In the world of machine learning, it's common for a model's predictions to differ from the actual observations. This deviation could happen for a couple of reasons: either the model itself is not optimal, or the sample being analyzed is an unusual or outlier case.

When this happens, it would be helpful to know which specific input factors or variables are responsible for the anomaly. The paper introduces a new approach called "likelihood compensation (LC)" to address this problem, particularly in situations where the machine learning model is a black box (meaning its inner workings are not transparent) and the training data used to build the model are not available.

The key idea behind LC is to calculate a "responsibility score" for each input variable. This score represents how much that variable needs to be adjusted or "compensated" to bring the model's prediction as close as possible to the true observation. By understanding which variables are driving the anomaly, the end user (like a business or industry professional) can get insights into why the model is making an incorrect prediction in that particular case.

The paper shows that existing methods for explaining black-box models, like local linear surrogate modeling and Shapley values, are not designed to handle these kinds of anomalies. They tend to be "deviation-agnostic," meaning their explanations don't take into account the fact that there is a deviation between the prediction and the true observation.

The authors validate the effectiveness of their LC approach using public datasets and also demonstrate its usefulness in a real-world building energy prediction task based on feedback from domain experts.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a novel "likelihood compensation (LC)" framework to address the problem of "anomaly attribution" when dealing with black-box machine learning models. The key idea is to equate the "responsibility score" for each input variable with the correction needed on that variable to achieve the highest possible likelihood of the true observation.

The authors first show that existing model-agnostic explanation methods, such as local linear surrogate modeling and Shapley values, are not designed to explain anomalies. They demonstrate that these methods are "deviation-agnostic," meaning their explanations do not consider the fact that there is a deviation between the model's prediction and the true observation.

The authors then introduce the "likelihood compensation (LC)" framework, which calculates the responsibility score for each input variable as the correction needed on that variable to achieve the highest possible likelihood of the true observation. They validate the effectiveness of the LC approach using publicly available datasets and a real-world building energy prediction task, with positive feedback from domain experts.

Critical Analysis

The paper's proposal of the "likelihood compensation (LC)" framework to address the problem of anomaly attribution in black-box machine learning models is a novel and potentially useful contribution to the field. By focusing on the deviation between the model's prediction and the true observation, the LC approach aims to provide more meaningful and actionable insights for end users compared to existing model-agnostic explanation methods.

However, the paper does not discuss potential limitations or caveats of the LC framework. For example, it would be important to understand how the framework performs in cases where the true observation is itself noisy or uncertain, or when the underlying distribution of the data is complex and not well-captured by the model.

Additionally, the paper could have explored the computational efficiency and scalability of the LC approach, especially as the number of input variables grows. This would be an important consideration for its practical application in real-world, large-scale AI systems.

Further research could also investigate the robustness of the LC framework to different types of black-box models, and compare its performance to other emerging anomaly attribution techniques, such as counterfactual explanations or scattered data approximation.

Conclusion

This paper introduces a novel "likelihood compensation (LC)" framework to address the problem of anomaly attribution in black-box machine learning models. By focusing on the deviation between the model's prediction and the true observation, the LC approach aims to provide more meaningful and actionable insights for end users compared to existing model-agnostic explanation methods.

The authors validate the effectiveness of the LC framework using public datasets and a real-world building energy prediction task, with positive feedback from domain experts. While the paper represents a promising contribution to the field of interpretable AI, further research is needed to explore the limitations, computational efficiency, and robustness of the approach across different types of black-box models and data distributions.