arXiv subjects

Sarah Tan

Publications and source records attributed to Sarah Tan.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2019

Axiomatic Interpretability for Multiclass Additive Models

Generalized additive models (GAMs) are favored in many regression and binary classification problems because they are able to fit complex, nonlinear functions while still remaining interpretable. In the first part of this paper, we generalize a state-of-the-art GAM learning algorithm based on boosted trees to the multiclass setting, and show that this multiclass algorithm outperforms existing GAM learning algorithms and sometimes matches the performance of full complexity models such as gradient boosted trees. In the second part, we turn our attention to the interpretability of GAMs in the multiclass setting. Surprisingly, the natural interpretability of GAMs breaks down when there are more than two classes. Naive interpretation of multiclass GAMs can lead to false conclusions. Inspired by binary GAMs, we identify two axioms that any additive model must satisfy in order to not be visually misleading. We then develop a technique called Additive Post-Processing for Interpretability (API), that provably transforms a pre-trained additive model to satisfy the interpretability axioms without sacrificing accuracy. The technique works not just on models trained with our learning algorithm, but on any multiclass additive model, including multiclass linear and logistic regression. We demonstrate the effectiveness of API on a 12-class infant mortality dataset.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Investigating Human + Machine Complementarity for Recidivism Predictions

When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Distill-and-Compare: Auditing Black-Box Models Using Transparent Model Distillation

Black-box risk scoring models permeate our lives, yet are typically proprietary or opaque. We propose Distill-and-Compare, a model distillation and comparison approach to audit such models. To gain insight into black-box models, we treat them as teachers, training transparent student models to mimic the risk scores assigned by black-box models. We compare the student model trained with distillation to a second un-distilled transparent model trained on ground-truth outcomes, and use differences between the two models to gain insight into the black-box model. Our approach can be applied in a realistic setting, without probing the black-box model API. We demonstrate the approach on four public data sets: COMPAS, Stop-and-Frisk, Chicago Police, and Lending Club. We also propose a statistical test to determine if a data set is missing key features used to train the black-box model. Our test finds that the ProPublica data is likely missing key feature(s) used in COMPAS.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2018

A Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Approach to Estimate Disease Prevalence in Hard-To-Reach Populations: Hepatitis C in New York City

Existing methods to estimate the prevalence of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) in New York City (NYC) are limited in scope and fail to assess hard-to-reach subpopulations with highest risk such as injecting drug users (IDUs). To address these limitations, we employ a Bayesian multi-parameter evidence synthesis model to systematically combine multiple sources of data, account for bias in certain data sources, and provide unbiased HCV prevalence estimates with associated uncertainty. Our approach improves on previous estimates by explicitly accounting for injecting drug use and including data from high-risk subpopulations such as the incarcerated, and is more inclusive, utilizing ten NYC data sources. In addition, we derive two new equations to allow age at first injecting drug use data for former and current IDUs to be incorporated into the Bayesian evidence synthesis, a first for this type of model. Our estimated overall HCV prevalence as of 2012 among NYC adults aged 20-59 years is 2.78% (95% CI 2.61-2.94%), which represents between 124,900 and 140,000 chronic HCV cases. These estimates suggest that HCV prevalence in NYC is higher than previously indicated from household surveys (2.2%) and the surveillance system (2.37%), and that HCV transmission is increasing among young injecting adults in NYC. An ancillary benefit from our results is an estimate of current IDUs aged 20-59 in NYC: 0.58% or 27,600 individuals.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2017

A Double Parametric Bootstrap Test for Topic Models

Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) is a technique for finding latent representations of data. The method has been applied to corpora to construct topic models. However, NMF has likelihood assumptions which are often violated by real document corpora. We present a double parametric bootstrap test for evaluating the fit of an NMF-based topic model based on the duality of the KL divergence and Poisson maximum likelihood estimation. The test correctly identifies whether a topic model based on an NMF approach yields reliable results in simulated and real data.

stat.ML↗