The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Auditing Black-Box Models for Indirect Influence
Open accessAbstract
Data-trained predictive models see widespread use, but for the most part they are used as black boxes which output a prediction or score. It is therefore hard to acquire a deeper understanding of model behavior and in particular how different features influence the model prediction. This is important when interpreting the behavior of complex models or asserting that certain problematic attributes (such as race or gender) are not unduly influencing decisions. In this paper, we present a technique for auditing black-box models, which lets us study the extent to which existing models take advantage of particular features in the data set, without knowing how the models work. Our work focuses on the problem of indirect influence : how some features might indirectly influence outcomes via other, related features. As a result, we can find attribute influences even in cases where, upon further direct examination of the model, the attribute is not referred to by the model at all. Our approach does not require the black-box model to be retrained. This is important if, for example, the model is only accessible via an API, and contrasts our work with other methods that investigate feature influence such as feature selection. We present experimental evidence for the effectiveness of our procedure using a variety of publicly available data sets and models. We also validate our procedure using techniques from interpretable learning and feature selection, as well as against other black-box auditing procedures. To further demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique, we use it to audit a black-box recidivism prediction algorithm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Feldman et al.'s procedure is not appropriate for continuous Z or Z with many distinct values.
“Although Adler et al. (2016) makes some improvements to the handling of categorical variables, the procedure is not appropriate for continuous Z or Z with many distinct values.”
From An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction (2019) · cites this paper as Adler et al. (2016)
In “Computing Influence” (p. 3), the paper says the numerical obscuring procedure requires the feature being removed to be categorical. “Removing numerical features” (p. 3) then describes binning numerical features so the procedure can handle them; the paper does not state that continuous features are categorically inappropriate or identify many distinct values as a limitation. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe method in [2] for auditing black box predictors does not assume any knowledge on the models behavior.
“This method does not assume any knowledge on the models behavior.”
From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1145/2783258.2783311 · DOI · Paper page
- freedman, 1981, On the histogram as a density estimator: L 2 theory, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 57, 453
- 10.1214/aos/1028144844 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10618-014-0368-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7299017 · DOI
- 10.1145/2382577.2382579 · DOI · Paper page
- le, 2011, Building high-level features using large scale unsupervised learning, Proc ICML
- massey, 1993, American Apartheid Segregation and the making of the underclass
- 10.1017/CBO9780511814075 · DOI
- quinlan, 1993, C4 5 Programs for Machine Learning
- zeiler, 2014, Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014, 818, 10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICTer.2013.6761181 · DOI
- barakat, 2004, Learning-based rule-extraction from support vector machines, Proc of the 14th International Conference on Computer Theory and Applications
- casella, 2001, Statistical Inference, Cengage Learning
- zeng, 2015, Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction, Technical Report 1503 07810
- 10.1145/1150402.1150464 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/SP.2016.42 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.11.024 · DOI · Paper page
- angwin, 2016, Machine bias, ProPublica
- 10.1109/ICDM.2014.10 · DOI
- 10.1145/342009.335438 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature17439 · DOI · Paper page
- romei, 2013, A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 1
- 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 · DOI
- rubner, 1998, A metric for distributions with applications to image databases, Computer Vision 1998 Sixth International Conference on, 59
- ustun, 2014, Supersparse linear integer models for interpretable classification, Technical Report 1306 6677
- 10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716679679 · Cited by 4,567
Beyond Sparsity: Tree Regularization of Deep Models for Interpretability
Wu, M., Hughes, M., Parbhoo, S., Zazzi, M., Roth, V., & Doshi-Velez, F. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11501 · Cited by 213
A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3236009 · Cited by 629
Johndrow, J. E., & Lum, K. (2019) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1201 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Adler, P., Falk, C., Friedler, S. A., Rybeck, G., Scheidegger, C., Smith, B., & Venkatasubramanian, S.
- Affiliations
- Haverford College (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Corresponding author
- Friedler, Sorelle A.
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 0219-1377 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2567533607
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 21.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Knowledge and Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1513651, 1302688, 1633724, 1251049, 1307801)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- indirect influence, feature influence, explainable AI, algorithmic fairness, algorithmic discrimination, interpretable learning, feature selection, recidivism prediction, model interpretability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review