Interpret Federated Learning with Shapley Values

Federated Learning is introduced to protect privacy by distributing training data into multiple parties. Each party trains its own model and a meta-model is constructed from the sub models. In this way the details of the data are not disclosed in between each party. In this paper we investigate the model interpretation methods for Federated Learning, specifically on the measurement of feature importance of vertical Federated Learning where feature space of the data is divided into two parties, namely host and guest. For host party to interpret a single prediction of vertical Federated Learning model, the interpretation results, namely the feature importance, are very likely to reveal the protected data from guest party. We propose a method to balance the model interpretability and data privacy in vertical Federated Learning by using Shapley values to reveal detailed feature importance for host features and a unified importance value for federated guest features. Our experiments indicate robust and informative results for interpreting Federated Learning models.

[1]  Peter Richtárik,et al.  Federated Optimization: Distributed Machine Learning for On-Device Intelligence , 2016, ArXiv.

[2]  Brad Boehmke,et al.  Interpretable Machine Learning , 2019 .

[3]  Alexander Binder,et al.  On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation , 2015, PloS one.

[4]  Qiang Yang,et al.  A Survey on Transfer Learning , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[5]  Jan Philipp Albrecht,et al.  How the GDPR Will Change the World , 2016 .

[6]  Avanti Shrikumar,et al.  Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences , 2017, ICML.

[7]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Distilling a Neural Network Into a Soft Decision Tree , 2017, CEx@AI*IA.

[9]  Erik Strumbelj,et al.  Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions , 2014, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[10]  S. Lipovetsky,et al.  Analysis of regression in game theory approach , 2001 .

[11]  Yair Zick,et al.  Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence: Theory and Experiments with Learning Systems , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).

[12]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[13]  Blaise Agüera y Arcas,et al.  Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data , 2016, AISTATS.

[14]  Barbara Hammer,et al.  Interpretable machine learning with reject option , 2018, Autom..

[15]  Ronald L. Rivest,et al.  ON DATA BANKS AND PRIVACY HOMOMORPHISMS , 1978 .

[16]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[17]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Scaling Up the Accuracy of Naive-Bayes Classifiers: A Decision-Tree Hybrid , 1996, KDD.

[18]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Federated Machine Learning , 2019, ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol..

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

[20]  Seth Flaxman,et al.  European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a "Right to Explanation" , 2016, AI Mag..