Hard to Explain: On the Computational Hardness of In-Distribution Model Interpretation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the computational hardness of interpreting machine learning models on in-distribution data
- Provides theoretical results showing that accurately explaining model behavior on typical inputs is computationally intractable
- Highlights the inherent tension between model accuracy and interpretability
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the challenge of making complex machine learning models, like deep neural networks, interpretable to humans. Interpretability is the ability to understand how a model makes its predictions. The researchers show that for many real-world machine learning tasks, accurately explaining a model's behavior on typical inputs is computationally very difficult, meaning it would take an impractically long time to do.
This result highlights a fundamental tradeoff in machine learning: the most accurate models tend to be the least interpretable, while simpler, more interpretable models often sacrifice accuracy. The paper suggests that achieving both high accuracy and high interpretability may be inherently hard, and that researchers and practitioners need to carefully consider this tradeoff when designing and deploying machine learning systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper formulates the problem of in-distribution model interpretation as a computational task and proves that it is computationally hard in a precise, formal sense. Specifically, the authors show that accurately explaining a model's behavior on typical inputs is NP-hard, meaning that the computational resources required grow exponentially with the size of the problem.
They consider two main approaches to model interpretation: local interpretability, which seeks to explain individual predictions, and global interpretability, which aims to understand the overall behavior of the model. The paper shows that both of these tasks are computationally hard, suggesting fundamental limits on our ability to interpret complex machine learning models.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a strong theoretical argument, but there are some caveats to consider. First, the hardness results are proven in the worst-case, which means that for some specific models or datasets, interpretation may still be tractable. Additionally, the paper does not address the possibility of approximate or heuristic interpretation methods that may be practically useful, even if they don't provide perfect explanations.
Furthermore, the paper focuses solely on the computational complexity of interpretation, and does not consider other important factors, such as the cognitive load on human users or the availability of training data for interpretable models. In practice, the tradeoffs between accuracy, interpretability, and other desiderata may be more nuanced than the paper suggests.
Conclusion
This paper highlights a fundamental tension in machine learning between model accuracy and interpretability. By proving the computational hardness of accurately explaining the behavior of complex models on typical inputs, it suggests that there may be inherent limits to our ability to build highly accurate and fully interpretable systems.
While this is a sobering conclusion, the paper also motivates further research into techniques for improving model interpretability, as well as a deeper understanding of the tradeoffs involved. As machine learning systems become more prevalent in high-stakes domains, the need for interpretable and accountable AI will only grow, making this an important area for continued study.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Hard to Explain: On the Computational Hardness of In-Distribution Model Interpretation
Guy Amir, Shahaf Bassan, Guy Katz
The ability to interpret Machine Learning (ML) models is becoming increasingly essential. However, despite significant progress in the field, there remains a lack of rigorous characterization regarding the innate interpretability of different models. In an attempt to bridge this gap, recent work has demonstrated that it is possible to formally assess interpretability by studying the computational complexity of explaining the decisions of various models. In this setting, if explanations for a particular model can be obtained efficiently, the model is considered interpretable (since it can be explained ``easily''). However, if generating explanations over an ML model is computationally intractable, it is considered uninterpretable. Prior research identified two key factors that influence the complexity of interpreting an ML model: (i) the type of the model (e.g., neural networks, decision trees, etc.); and (ii) the form of explanation (e.g., contrastive explanations, Shapley values, etc.). In this work, we claim that a third, important factor must also be considered for this analysis -- the underlying distribution over which the explanation is obtained. Considering the underlying distribution is key in avoiding explanations that are socially misaligned, i.e., convey information that is biased and unhelpful to users. We demonstrate the significant influence of the underlying distribution on the resulting overall interpretation complexity, in two settings: (i) prediction models paired with an external out-of-distribution (OOD) detector; and (ii) prediction models designed to inherently generate socially aligned explanations. Our findings prove that the expressiveness of the distribution can significantly influence the overall complexity of interpretation, and identify essential prerequisites that a model must possess to generate socially aligned explanations.
Read more8/9/2024
0
Local vs. Global Interpretability: A Computational Complexity Perspective
Shahaf Bassan, Guy Amir, Guy Katz
The local and global interpretability of various ML models has been studied extensively in recent years. However, despite significant progress in the field, many known results remain informal or lack sufficient mathematical rigor. We propose a framework for bridging this gap, by using computational complexity theory to assess local and global perspectives of interpreting ML models. We begin by proposing proofs for two novel insights that are essential for our analysis: (1) a duality between local and global forms of explanations; and (2) the inherent uniqueness of certain global explanation forms. We then use these insights to evaluate the complexity of computing explanations, across three model types representing the extremes of the interpretability spectrum: (1) linear models; (2) decision trees; and (3) neural networks. Our findings offer insights into both the local and global interpretability of these models. For instance, under standard complexity assumptions such as P != NP, we prove that selecting global sufficient subsets in linear models is computationally harder than selecting local subsets. Interestingly, with neural networks and decision trees, the opposite is true: it is harder to carry out this task locally than globally. We believe that our findings demonstrate how examining explainability through a computational complexity lens can help us develop a more rigorous grasp of the inherent interpretability of ML models.
Read more6/10/2024
0
A Critical Assessment of Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning for Intrusion Detection
Omer Subasi, Johnathan Cree, Joseph Manzano, Elena Peterson
There has been a large number of studies in interpretable and explainable ML for cybersecurity, in particular, for intrusion detection. Many of these studies have significant amount of overlapping and repeated evaluations and analysis. At the same time, these studies overlook crucial model, data, learning process, and utility related issues and many times completely disregard them. These issues include the use of overly complex and opaque ML models, unaccounted data imbalances and correlated features, inconsistent influential features across different explanation methods, the inconsistencies stemming from the constituents of a learning process, and the implausible utility of explanations. In this work, we empirically demonstrate these issues, analyze them and propose practical solutions in the context of feature-based model explanations. Specifically, we advise avoiding complex opaque models such as Deep Neural Networks and instead using interpretable ML models such as Decision Trees as the available intrusion datasets are not difficult for such interpretable models to classify successfully. Then, we bring attention to the binary classification metrics such as Matthews Correlation Coefficient (which are well-suited for imbalanced datasets. Moreover, we find that feature-based model explanations are most often inconsistent across different settings. In this respect, to further gauge the extent of inconsistencies, we introduce the notion of cross explanations which corroborates that the features that are determined to be impactful by one explanation method most often differ from those by another method. Furthermore, we show that strongly correlated data features and the constituents of a learning process, such as hyper-parameters and the optimization routine, become yet another source of inconsistent explanations. Finally, we discuss the utility of feature-based explanations.
Read more7/8/2024
📈
0
Beyond Model Interpretability: Socio-Structural Explanations in Machine Learning
Andrew Smart, Atoosa Kasirzadeh
What is it to interpret the outputs of an opaque machine learning model. One approach is to develop interpretable machine learning techniques. These techniques aim to show how machine learning models function by providing either model centric local or global explanations, which can be based on mechanistic interpretations revealing the inner working mechanisms of models or nonmechanistic approximations showing input feature output data relationships. In this paper, we draw on social philosophy to argue that interpreting machine learning outputs in certain normatively salient domains could require appealing to a third type of explanation that we call sociostructural explanation. The relevance of this explanation type is motivated by the fact that machine learning models are not isolated entities but are embedded within and shaped by social structures. Sociostructural explanations aim to illustrate how social structures contribute to and partially explain the outputs of machine learning models. We demonstrate the importance of sociostructural explanations by examining a racially biased healthcare allocation algorithm. Our proposal highlights the need for transparency beyond model interpretability, understanding the outputs of machine learning systems could require a broader analysis that extends beyond the understanding of the machine learning model itself.
Read more9/6/2024