Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAmazon SageMaker Clarify: Machine Learning Bias Detection and Explainability in the Cloud
117
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Michaela Hardt
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Understanding the predictions made by machine learning (ML) models and their potential biases remains a challenging and labor-intensive task that depends on the application, the dataset, and the specific model. We present Amazon SageMaker Clarify, an explainability feature for Amazon SageMaker that launched in December 2020, providing insights into data and ML models by identifying biases and explaining predictions. It is deeply integrated into Amazon SageMaker, a fully managed service that enables data scientists and developers to build, train, and deploy ML models at any scale. Clarify supports bias detection and feature importance computation across the ML lifecycle, during data preparation, model evaluation, and post-deployment monitoring. We outline the desiderata derived from customer input, the modular architecture, and the methodology for bias and explanation computations. Further, we describe the technical challenges encountered and the tradeoffs we had to make. For illustration, we discuss two customer use cases. We present our deployment results including qualitative customer feedback and a quantitative evaluation. Finally, we summarize lessons learned, and discuss best practices for the successful adoption of fairness and explanation tools in practice.
rate research
Read More
Tuning complex machine learning systems is challenging. Machine learning typically requires to set hyperparameters, be it regularization, architecture, or optimization parameters, whose tuning is critical to achieve good predictive performance. To democratize access to machine learning systems, it is essential to automate the tuning. This paper presents Amazon SageMaker Automatic Model Tuning (AMT), a fully managed system for gradient-free optimization at scale. AMT finds the best version of a trained machine learning model by repeatedly evaluating it with different hyperparameter configurations. It leverages either random search or Bayesian optimization to choose the hyperparameter values resulting in the best model, as measured by the metric chosen by the user. AMT can be used with built-in algorithms, custom algorithms, and Amazon SageMaker pre-built containers for machine learning frameworks. We discuss the core functionality, system architecture, our design principles, and lessons learned. We also describe more advanced features of AMT, such as automated early stopping and warm-starting, showing in experiments their benefits to users.
AutoML systems provide a black-box solution to machine learning problems by selecting the right way of processing features, choosing an algorithm and tuning the hyperparameters of the entire pipeline. Although these systems perform well on many datasets, there is still a non-negligible number of datasets for which the one-shot solution produced by each particular system would provide sub-par performance. In this paper, we present Amazon SageMaker Autopilot: a fully managed system providing an automated ML solution that can be modified when needed. Given a tabular dataset and the target column name, Autopilot identifies the problem type, analyzes the data and produces a diverse set of complete ML pipelines including feature preprocessing and ML algorithms, which are tuned to generate a leaderboard of candidate models. In the scenario where the performance is not satisfactory, a data scientist is able to view and edit the proposed ML pipelines in order to infuse their expertise and business knowledge without having to revert to a fully manual solution. This paper describes the different components of Autopilot, emphasizing the infrastructure choices that allow scalability, high quality models, editable ML pipelines, consumption of artifacts of offline meta-learning, and a convenient integration with the entire SageMaker suite allowing these trained models to be used in a production setting.
Established approaches to assuring safety-critical systems and software are difficult to apply to systems employing machine learning (ML). In many cases, ML is used on ill-defined problems, e.g. optimising sepsis treatment, where there is no clear, pre-defined specification against which to assess validity. This problem is exacerbated by the opaque nature of ML where the learnt model is not amenable to human scrutiny. Explainable AI methods have been proposed to tackle this issue by producing human-interpretable representations of ML models which can help users to gain confidence and build trust in the ML system. However, there is not much work explicitly investigating the role of explainability for safety assurance in the context of ML development. This paper identifies ways in which explainable AI methods can contribute to safety assurance of ML-based systems. It then uses a concrete ML-based clinical decision support system, concerning weaning of patients from mechanical ventilation, to demonstrate how explainable AI methods can be employed to produce evidence to support safety assurance. The results are also represented in a safety argument to show where, and in what way, explainable AI methods can contribute to a safety case. Overall, we conclude that explainable AI methods have a valuable role in safety assurance of ML-based systems in healthcare but that they are not sufficient in themselves to assure safety.
Prior studies have unveiled the vulnerability of the deep neural networks in the context of adversarial machine learning, leading to great recent attention into this area. One interesting question that has yet to be fully explored is the bias-variance relationship of adversarial machine learning, which can potentially provide deeper insights into this behaviour. The notion of bias and variance is one of the main approaches to analyze and evaluate the generalization and reliability of a machine learning model. Although it has been extensively used in other machine learning models, it is not well explored in the field of deep learning and it is even less explored in the area of adversarial machine learning. In this study, we investigate the effect of adversarial machine learning on the bias and variance of a trained deep neural network and analyze how adversarial perturbations can affect the generalization of a network. We derive the bias-variance trade-off for both classification and regression applications based on two main loss functions: (i) mean squared error (MSE), and (ii) cross-entropy. Furthermore, we perform quantitative analysis with both simulated and real data to empirically evaluate consistency with the derived bias-variance tradeoffs. Our analysis sheds light on why the deep neural networks have poor performance under adversarial perturbation from a bias-variance point of view and how this type of perturbation would change the performance of a network. Moreover, given these new theoretical findings, we introduce a new adversarial machine learning algorithm with lower computational complexity than well-known adversarial machine learning strategies (e.g., PGD) while providing a high success rate in fooling deep neural networks in lower perturbation magnitudes.
Increasingly, software is making autonomous decisions in case of criminal sentencing, approving credit cards, hiring employees, and so on. Some of these decisions show bias and adversely affect certain social groups (e.g. those defined by sex, race, age, marital status). Many prior works on bias mitigation take the following form: change the data or learners in multiple ways, then see if any of that improves fairness. Perhaps a better approach is to postulate root causes of bias and then applying some resolution strategy. This paper postulates that the root causes of bias are the prior decisions that affect- (a) what data was selected and (b) the labels assigned to those examples. Our Fair-SMOTE algorithm removes biased labels; and rebalances internal distributions such that based on sensitive attribute, examples are equal in both positive and negative classes. On testing, it was seen that this method was just as effective at reducing bias as prior approaches. Further, models generated via Fair-SMOTE achieve higher performance (measured in terms of recall and F1) than other state-of-the-art fairness improvement algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, measured in terms of number of analyzed learners and datasets, this study is one of the largest studies on bias mitigation yet presented in the literature.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
