“Influence sketching”: Finding influential samples in large-scale regressions

There is an especially strong need in modern large-scale data analysis to prioritize samples for manual inspection. For example, the inspection could target important mislabeled samples or key vulnerabilities exploitable by an adversarial attack. In order to solve the “needle in the haystack” problem of which samples to inspect, we develop a new scalable version of Cook's distance, a classical statistical technique for identifying samples which unusually strongly impact the fit of a regression model (and its downstream predictions). In order to scale this technique up to very large and high-dimensional datasets, we introduce a new algorithm which we call “influence sketching.” Influence sketching embeds random projections within the influence computation; in particular, the influence score is calculated using the randomly projected pseudo-dataset from the post-convergence General Linear Model (GLM). We validate that influence sketching can reliably and successfully discover influential samples by applying the technique to a malware detection dataset of over 2 million executable files, each represented with almost 100,000 features. For example, we find that randomly deleting approximately 10% of training samples reduces predictive accuracy only slightly from 99.47% to 99.45%, whereas deleting the same number of samples with high influence sketch scores reduces predictive accuracy all the way down to 90.24%. Moreover, we find that influential samples are especially likely to be mislabeled. In the case study, we manually inspect the most influential samples, and find that influence sketching pointed us to new, previously unidentified pieces of malware.

[1]  Honglak Lee,et al.  Efficient L1 Regularized Logistic Regression , 2006, AAAI.

[2]  S. Weisberg,et al.  Characterizations of an Empirical Influence Function for Detecting Influential Cases in Regression , 1980 .

[3]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[4]  Michael Carl Tschantz,et al.  Better Malware Ground Truth: Techniques for Weighting Anti-Virus Vendor Labels , 2015, AISec@CCS.

[5]  Sameer Singh,et al.  “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, NAACL.

[6]  R. Dennis Cook,et al.  Detection of Influential Observation in Linear Regression , 2000, Technometrics.

[7]  Xuan Zhao,et al.  Projecting "Better Than Randomly": How to Reduce the Dimensionality of Very Large Datasets in a Way That Outperforms Random Projections , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA).

[8]  D. Pregibon Logistic Regression Diagnostics , 1981 .

[9]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Very sparse random projections , 2006, KDD '06.

[10]  Dimitris Achlioptas,et al.  Database-friendly random projections: Johnson-Lindenstrauss with binary coins , 2003, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[11]  M. Verleysen,et al.  Classification in the Presence of Label Noise: A Survey , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[12]  Michael W. Mahoney Randomized Algorithms for Matrices and Data , 2011, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[13]  Nathan Halko,et al.  Finding Structure with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions , 2009, SIAM Rev..

[14]  Anupam Gupta,et al.  An elementary proof of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma , 1999 .

[15]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .