Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3511808.3557257acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Change Detection for Local Explainability in Evolving Data Streams

Published: 17 October 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    As complex machine learning models are increasingly used in sensitive applications like banking, trading or credit scoring, there is a growing demand for reliable explanation mechanisms. Local feature attribution methods have become a popular technique for post-hoc and model-agnostic explanations. However, attribution methods typically assume a stationary environment in which the predictive model has been trained and remains stable. As a result, it is often unclear how local attributions behave in realistic, constantly evolving settings such as streaming and online applications. In this paper, we discuss the impact of temporal change on local feature attributions. In particular, we show that local attributions can become obsolete each time the predictive model is updated or concept drift alters the data generating distribution. Consequently, local feature attributions in data streams provide high explanatory power only when combined with a mechanism that allows us to detect and respond to local changes over time. To this end, we present CDLEEDS, a flexible and model-agnostic framework for detecting local change and concept drift. CDLEEDS serves as an intuitive extension of attribution-based explanation techniques to identify outdated local attributions and enable more targeted recalculations. In experiments, we also show that the proposed framework can reliably detect both local and global concept drift. Accordingly, our work contributes to a more meaningful and robust explainability in online machine learning.

    Supplementary Material

    MP4 File (CIKM22-fp0121.mp4)
    Existing explanation techniques typically employ a notion of stationary models and data distributions that is not present in dynamic streaming applications. As a result, popular explanation methods such as local attributions often cannot be readily applied to online machine learning models. Indeed, in our work we show that local attributions can change each time the decision boundary is updated, e.g., following a concept drift. To avoid excessive retraining of past attributions, we introduce CDLEEDS, a local change detection model that effectively identifies outdated attributions, allowing for more targeted recalculations. As shown in experiments, CDLEEDS can serve as a powerful and model-agnostic extension of local attribution methods for more efficient and temporally coherent explanations in evolving data streams.

    References

    [1]
    Kjersti Aas, Martin Jullum, and Anders Løland. 2021. Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley values. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 298 (2021), 103502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103502
    [2]
    Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. 2018. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, Vol. 6 (2018), 52138--52160.
    [3]
    Marco Ancona, Enea Ceolini, Cengiz Öztireli, and Markus Gross. 2018. Towards Better Understanding of Gradient-Based Attribution Methods for Deep Neural Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Sy21R9JAW
    [4]
    Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-López, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, et al. 2020. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, Vol. 58 (2020), 82--115.
    [5]
    Manuel Baena-Garcia, José del Campo-Ávila, Raúl Fidalgo, Albert Bifet, R Gavalda, and R Morales-Bueno. 2006. Early drift detection method. In Fourth international workshop on knowledge discovery from data streams, Vol. 6. 77--86.
    [6]
    Roberto SM Barros, Danilo RL Cabral, Paulo M Goncc alves Jr, and Silas GTC Santos. 2017. RDDM: Reactive drift detection method. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 90 (2017), 344--355.
    [7]
    Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavalda. 2007. Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 443--448.
    [8]
    Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavalda. 2009. Adaptive learning from evolving data streams. In International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis. Springer, 249--260.
    [9]
    Jock A. Blackard and Denis J. Dean. 1999. Comparative Accuracies of Artificial Neural Networks and Discriminant Analysis in Predicting Forest Cover Types from Cartographic Variables. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Vol. 24, 3 (dec 1999), 131--151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1699(99)00046-0
    [10]
    Zoran Bosnić, Jaka Demšar, Grega Kevs pret, Pedro Pereira Rodrigues, Joao Gama, and Igor Kononenko. 2014. Enhancing data stream predictions with reliability estimators and explanation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34 (2014), 178--192.
    [11]
    Feng Cao, Martin Estert, Weining Qian, and Aoying Zhou. 2006. Density-based clustering over an evolving data stream with noise. In Proceedings of the 2006 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 328--339.
    [12]
    Diogo V Carvalho, Eduardo M Pereira, and Jaime S Cardoso. 2019. Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics, Vol. 8, 8 (2019), 832.
    [13]
    Hugh Chen, Joseph D Janizek, Scott Lundberg, and Su-In Lee. 2020. True to the Model or True to the Data? arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16234 (2020).
    [14]
    Jaka Demšar and Zoran Bosnić. 2018. Detecting concept drift in data streams using model explanation. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 92 (2018), 546--559.
    [15]
    Pedro M Domingos and Geoff Hulten. 2001. Catching up with the Data: Research Issues in Mining Data Streams. In DMKD.
    [16]
    Ronald Aylmer Fisher. 1992. Statistical methods for research workers. In Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, 66--70.
    [17]
    Joao Gama and Gladys Castillo. 2006. Learning with local drift detection. In International conference on advanced data mining and applications. Springer, 42--55.
    [18]
    Joao Gama, Pedro Medas, Gladys Castillo, and Pedro Rodrigues. 2004. Learning with drift detection. In Brazilian symposium on artificial intelligence. Springer, 286--295.
    [19]
    JoĐo Gama and Pedro Pereira Rodrigues. 2009. An overview on mining data streams. Foundations of Computational, Intelligence Volume 6 (2009), 29--45.
    [20]
    João Gama, Indrė Žliobaitė, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. 2014. A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), Vol. 46, 4 (2014), 44.
    [21]
    Paulo M Goncc alves Jr, Silas GT de Carvalho Santos, Roberto SM Barros, and Davi CL Vieira. 2014. A comparative study on concept drift detectors. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41, 18 (2014), 8144--8156.
    [22]
    Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2018. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), Vol. 51, 5 (2018), 1--42.
    [23]
    Michael Harries and New South Wales. 1999. Splice-2 comparative evaluation: Electricity pricing. (1999).
    [24]
    Johannes Haug, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2022a. Dynamic Model Tree for Interpretable Data Stream Learning. IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (2022).
    [25]
    Johannes Haug and Gjergji Kasneci. 2021. Learning Parameter Distributions to Detect Concept Drift in Data Streams. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 9452--9459.
    [26]
    Johannes Haug, Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2020. Leveraging Model Inherent Variable Importance for Stable Online Feature Selection. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1478--1502.
    [27]
    Johannes Haug, Effi Tramountani, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2022b. Standardized Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Evolving Data Streams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13625 (2022).
    [28]
    Johannes Haug, Stefan Zürn, Peter El-Jiz, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2021. On Baselines for Local Feature Attributions. AAAI-21 Explainable Agency in Artificial Intelligence Workshop (2021).
    [29]
    Sérgio Jesus, Catarina Belém, Vladimir Balayan, Jo ao Bento, Pedro Saleiro, Pedro Bizarro, and João Gama. 2021. How can I choose an explainer? An Application-grounded Evaluation of Post-hoc Explanations. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 805--815.
    [30]
    Enkelejda Kasneci, Gjergji Kasneci, Tobias Appel, Johannes Haug, Franz Wortha, Maike Tibus, Ulrich Trautwein, and Peter Gerjets. 2021. TüEyeQ, a rich IQ test performance data set with eye movement, educational and socio-demographic information. Scientific Data, Vol. 8, 1 (2021), 1--14. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00938-3
    [31]
    Gjergji Kasneci and Thomas Gottron. 2016. Licon: A linear weighting scheme for the contribution of input variables in deep artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 45--54.
    [32]
    Ron Kohavi. 1996. Scaling up the Accuracy of Naive-Bayes Classifiers: A Decision-Tree Hybrid. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Portland, Oregon) (KDD'96). AAAI Press, 202--207.
    [33]
    Scott M Lundberg, Gabriel G Erion, and Su-In Lee. 2018. Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03888 (2018).
    [34]
    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 4765--4774.
    [35]
    Jacob Montiel, Jesse Read, Albert Bifet, and Talel Abdessalem. 2018. Scikit-multiflow: A multi-output streaming framework. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 19, 1 (2018), 2915--2914.
    [36]
    Sergio Moro, Raul Laureano, and Paulo Cortez. 2011. Using Data Mining for Bank Direct Marketing: An Application of the CRISP-DM Methodology. Proceedings of the European Simulation and Modelling Conference - ESM'2011 (2011).
    [37]
    Gustavo Oliveira, Leandro L Minku, and Adriano LI Oliveira. 2021. Tackling Virtual and Real Concept Drifts: An Adaptive Gaussian Mixture Model Approach. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2021).
    [38]
    Ali Pesaranghader, Herna Viktor, and Eric Paquet. 2018a. Reservoir of diverse adaptive learners and stacking fast hoeffding drift detection methods for evolving data streams. Machine Learning, Vol. 107, 11 (2018), 1711--1743.
    [39]
    Ali Pesaranghader and Herna L Viktor. 2016. Fast hoeffding drift detection method for evolving data streams. In Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. Springer, 96--111.
    [40]
    Ali Pesaranghader, Herna L Viktor, and Eric Paquet. 2018b. McDiarmid drift detection methods for evolving data streams. In 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1--9.
    [41]
    Gregory Plumb, Denali Molitor, and Ameet S Talwalkar. 2018. Model agnostic supervised local explanations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2515--2524.
    [42]
    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1135--1144.
    [43]
    Gordon J Ross, Niall M Adams, Dimitris K Tasoulis, and David J Hand. 2012. Exponentially weighted moving average charts for detecting concept drift. Pattern recognition letters, Vol. 33, 2 (2012), 191--198.
    [44]
    Tegjyot Singh Sethi and Mehmed Kantardzic. 2017. On the reliable detection of concept drift from streaming unlabeled data. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 82 (2017), 77--99.
    [45]
    Avanti Shrikumar, Peyton Greenside, and Anshul Kundaje. 2017. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70. JMLR. org, 3145--3153.
    [46]
    Vinicius MA Souza, Denis M dos Reis, Andre G Maletzke, and Gustavo EAPA Batista. 2020. Challenges in benchmarking stream learning algorithms with real-world data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 34, 6 (2020), 1805--1858.
    [47]
    Mukund Sundararajan and Amir Najmi. 2019. The many Shapley values for model explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08474 (2019).
    [48]
    Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 3319--3328.
    [49]
    Van-Dai Ta, Chuan-Ming Liu, and Goodwill Wandile Nkabinde. 2016. Big data stream computing in healthcare real-time analytics. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analysis (ICCCBDA). IEEE, 37--42.
    [50]
    Kai Sheng Tai, Vatsal Sharan, Peter Bailis, and Gregory Valiant. 2018. Sketching linear classifiers over data streams. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data. 757--772.
    [51]
    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research, Vol. 9, 11 (2008).
    [52]
    Geoffrey I Webb, Roy Hyde, Hong Cao, Hai Long Nguyen, and Francois Petitjean. 2016. Characterizing concept drift. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 30, 4 (2016), 964--994.
    [53]
    Tian Zhang, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Miron Livny. 1996. BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases. ACM sigmod record, Vol. 25, 2 (1996), 103--114.
    [54]
    Indrė ŽliobaitO. 2010. Learning under Concept Drift: an Overview. CoRR, Vol. abs/1010.4784 (01 2010).

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Counterfactual Explanation at Will, with Zero Privacy LeakageProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549332:3(1-29)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
    • (2024)Relative Keys: Putting Feature Explanation into ContextProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36392632:1(1-28)Online publication date: 26-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Unsupervised Detection of Behavioural Drifts With Dynamic Clustering and Trajectory AnalysisIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2023.332018436:5(2257-2270)Online publication date: May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. Change Detection for Local Explainability in Evolving Data Streams

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '22: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
      October 2022
      5274 pages
      ISBN:9781450392365
      DOI:10.1145/3511808
      • General Chairs:
      • Mohammad Al Hasan,
      • Li Xiong
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 17 October 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. concept drift detection
      2. explainable machine learning
      3. local feature attributions
      4. online machine learning

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      CIKM '22
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      CIKM '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 621 of 2,257 submissions, 28%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

      Upcoming Conference

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)84
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
      Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Counterfactual Explanation at Will, with Zero Privacy LeakageProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549332:3(1-29)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
      • (2024)Relative Keys: Putting Feature Explanation into ContextProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36392632:1(1-28)Online publication date: 26-Mar-2024
      • (2024)Unsupervised Detection of Behavioural Drifts With Dynamic Clustering and Trajectory AnalysisIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2023.332018436:5(2257-2270)Online publication date: May-2024
      • (2023)Incremental permutation feature importance (iPFI): towards online explanations on data streamsMachine Language10.1007/s10994-023-06385-y112:12(4863-4903)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2023
      • (2023)iPDP: On Partial Dependence Plots in Dynamic Modeling ScenariosExplainable Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-44064-9_11(177-194)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
      • (2023)iSAGE: An Incremental Version of SAGE for Online Explanation on Data StreamsMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: Research Track10.1007/978-3-031-43418-1_26(428-445)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media