A Coverage-Based Utility Model for Identifying Unknown Unknowns

A classifier’s low confidence in prediction is often indicative of whether its prediction will be wrong; in this case, inputs are called known unknowns. In contrast, unknown unknowns (UUs) are inputs on which a classifier makes a high confidence mistake. Identifying UUs is especially important in safety-critical domains like medicine (diagnosis) and law (recidivism prediction). Previous work by Lakkaraju et al. (2017) on identifying unknown unknowns assumes that the utility of each revealed UU is independent of the others, rather than considering the set holistically. While this assumption yields an efficient discovery algorithm, we argue that it produces an incomplete understanding of the classifier’s limitations. In response, this paper proposes a new class of utility models that rewards how well the discovered UUs cover (or “explain”) a sample distribution of expected queries. Although choosing an optimal cover is intractable, even if the UUs were known, our utility model is monotone submodular, affording a greedy discovery strategy. Experimental results on four datasets show that our method outperforms bandit-based approaches and achieves within 60.9% utility of an omniscient, tractable upper bound.

[1]  E. S. Page CONTINUOUS INSPECTION SCHEMES , 1954 .

[2]  David Maxwell Chickering,et al.  ModelTracker: Redesigning Performance Analysis Tools for Machine Learning , 2015, CHI.

[3]  Ashish Sabharwal,et al.  How Good Are My Predictions? Efficiently Approximating Precision-Recall Curves for Massive Datasets , 2017, UAI.

[4]  Eleazar Eskin,et al.  Anomaly Detection over Noisy Data using Learned Probability Distributions , 2000, ICML.

[5]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  On-the-Job Learning with Bayesian Decision Theory , 2015, NIPS.

[6]  Bo Pang,et al.  Seeing Stars: Exploiting Class Relationships for Sentiment Categorization with Respect to Rating Scales , 2005, ACL.

[7]  Thomas G. Dietterich Steps Toward Robust Artificial Intelligence , 2017, AI Mag..

[8]  Jonathon Shlens,et al.  Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples , 2014, ICLR.

[9]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Identifying Unknown Unknowns in the Open World: Representations and Policies for Guided Exploration , 2016, AAAI.

[10]  Eric Horvitz AI, people, and society , 2017, Science.

[11]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A Kernel Two-Sample Test , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  Toward Open Set Recognition , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[13]  Burr Settles,et al.  Active Learning , 2012, Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.

[14]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Beat the Machine: Challenging Humans to Find a Predictive Model's “Unknown Unknowns” , 2015, JDIQ.

[15]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Inferring Networks of Substitutable and Complementary Products , 2015, KDD.

[16]  Terrance E. Boult,et al.  The Extreme Value Machine , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[17]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies , 2008, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[18]  John Schulman,et al.  Concrete Problems in AI Safety , 2016, ArXiv.

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

[20]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  On Human Intellect and Machine Failures: Troubleshooting Integrative Machine Learning Systems , 2016, AAAI.

[21]  Bo Pang,et al.  A Sentimental Education: Sentiment Analysis Using Subjectivity Summarization Based on Minimum Cuts , 2004, ACL.

[22]  Deepak Agarwal,et al.  Detecting anomalies in cross-classified streams: a Bayesian approach , 2006, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[23]  Joan Bruna,et al.  Intriguing properties of neural networks , 2013, ICLR.