Leemann, Tobias
Auto-GDA: Automatic Domain Adaptation for Efficient Grounding Verification in Retrieval Augmented Generation
Leemann, Tobias, Petridis, Periklis, Vietri, Giuseppe, Manousakas, Dionysis, Roth, Aaron, Aydore, Sergul
While retrieval augmented generation (RAG) has been shown to enhance factuality of large language model (LLM) outputs, LLMs still suffer from hallucination, generating incorrect or irrelevant information. One common detection strategy involves prompting the LLM again to assess whether its response is grounded in the retrieved evidence, but this approach is costly. Alternatively, lightweight natural language inference (NLI) models for efficient grounding verification can be used at inference time. While existing pre-trained NLI models offer potential solutions, their performance remains subpar compared to larger models on realistic RAG inputs. RAG inputs are more complex than most datasets used for training NLI models and have characteristics specific to the underlying knowledge base, requiring adaptation of the NLI models to a specific target domain. Additionally, the lack of labeled instances in the target domain makes supervised domain adaptation, e.g., through fine-tuning, infeasible. To address these challenges, we introduce Automatic Generative Domain Adaptation (Auto-GDA). Our framework enables unsupervised domain adaptation through synthetic data generation. Unlike previous methods that rely on handcrafted filtering and augmentation strategies, Auto-GDA employs an iterative process to continuously improve the quality of generated samples using weak labels from less efficient teacher models and discrete optimization to select the most promising augmented samples. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, with models fine-tuned on synthetic data using Auto-GDA often surpassing the performance of the teacher model and reaching the performance level of LLMs at 10 % of their computational cost.
Attention Mechanisms Don't Learn Additive Models: Rethinking Feature Importance for Transformers
Leemann, Tobias, Fastowski, Alina, Pfeiffer, Felix, Kasneci, Gjergji
We address the critical challenge of applying feature attribution methods to the transformer architecture, which dominates current applications in natural language processing and beyond. Traditional attribution methods to explainable AI (XAI) explicitly or implicitly rely on linear or additive surrogate models to quantify the impact of input features on a model's output. In this work, we formally prove an alarming incompatibility: transformers are structurally incapable to align with popular surrogate models for feature attribution, undermining the grounding of these conventional explanation methodologies. To address this discrepancy, we introduce the Softmax-Linked Additive Log-Odds Model (SLALOM), a novel surrogate model specifically designed to align with the transformer framework. Unlike existing methods, SLALOM demonstrates the capacity to deliver a range of faithful and insightful explanations across both synthetic and real-world datasets. Showing that diverse explanations computed from SLALOM outperform common surrogate explanations on different tasks, we highlight the need for task-specific feature attributions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Towards Non-Adversarial Algorithmic Recourse
Leemann, Tobias, Pawelczyk, Martin, Prenkaj, Bardh, Kasneci, Gjergji
The streams of research on adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations have largely been growing independently. This has led to several recent works trying to elucidate their similarities and differences. Most prominently, it has been argued that adversarial examples, as opposed to counterfactual explanations, have a unique characteristic in that they lead to a misclassification compared to the ground truth. However, the computational goals and methodologies employed in existing counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods often lack alignment with this requirement. Using formal definitions of adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations, we introduce non-adversarial algorithmic recourse and outline why in high-stakes situations, it is imperative to obtain counterfactual explanations that do not exhibit adversarial characteristics. We subsequently investigate how different components in the objective functions, e.g., the machine learning model or cost function used to measure distance, determine whether the outcome can be considered an adversarial example or not. Our experiments on common datasets highlight that these design choices are often more critical in deciding whether recourse is non-adversarial than whether recourse or attack algorithms are used. Furthermore, we show that choosing a robust and accurate machine learning model results in less adversarial recourse desired in practice.
Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Yao, Leemann, Tobias, Nguyen, Thai-trang, Fiedler, Lisa, Qian, Peizhu, Unhelkar, Vaibhav, Seidel, Tina, Kasneci, Gjergji, Kasneci, Enkelejda
Explainable AI (XAI) is widely viewed as a sine qua non for ever-expanding AI research. A better understanding of the needs of XAI users, as well as human-centered evaluations of explainable models are both a necessity and a challenge. In this paper, we explore how HCI and AI researchers conduct user studies in XAI applications based on a systematic literature review. After identifying and thoroughly analyzing 97core papers with human-based XAI evaluations over the past five years, we categorize them along the measured characteristics of explanatory methods, namely trust, understanding, usability, and human-AI collaboration performance. Our research shows that XAI is spreading more rapidly in certain application domains, such as recommender systems than in others, but that user evaluations are still rather sparse and incorporate hardly any insights from cognitive or social sciences. Based on a comprehensive discussion of best practices, i.e., common models, design choices, and measures in user studies, we propose practical guidelines on designing and conducting user studies for XAI researchers and practitioners. Lastly, this survey also highlights several open research directions, particularly linking psychological science and human-centered XAI.
Gaussian Membership Inference Privacy
Leemann, Tobias, Pawelczyk, Martin, Kasneci, Gjergji
We propose a novel and practical privacy notion called $f$-Membership Inference Privacy ($f$-MIP), which explicitly considers the capabilities of realistic adversaries under the membership inference attack threat model. Consequently, $f$-MIP offers interpretable privacy guarantees and improved utility (e.g., better classification accuracy). In particular, we derive a parametric family of $f$-MIP guarantees that we refer to as $\mu$-Gaussian Membership Inference Privacy ($\mu$-GMIP) by theoretically analyzing likelihood ratio-based membership inference attacks on stochastic gradient descent (SGD). Our analysis highlights that models trained with standard SGD already offer an elementary level of MIP. Additionally, we show how $f$-MIP can be amplified by adding noise to gradient updates. Our analysis further yields an analytical membership inference attack that offers two distinct advantages over previous approaches. First, unlike existing state-of-the-art attacks that require training hundreds of shadow models, our attack does not require any shadow model. Second, our analytical attack enables straightforward auditing of our privacy notion $f$-MIP. Finally, we quantify how various hyperparameters (e.g., batch size, number of model parameters) and specific data characteristics determine an attacker's ability to accurately infer a point's membership in the training set. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on models trained on vision and tabular datasets.
On the Trade-Off between Actionable Explanations and the Right to be Forgotten
Pawelczyk, Martin, Leemann, Tobias, Biega, Asia, Kasneci, Gjergji
As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications, policymakers have suggested tighter data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). One key principle is the "right to be forgotten" which gives users the right to have their data deleted. Another key principle is the right to an actionable explanation, also known as algorithmic recourse, allowing users to reverse unfavorable decisions. To date, it is unknown whether these two principles can be operationalized simultaneously. Therefore, we introduce and study the problem of recourse invalidation in the context of data deletion requests. More specifically, we theoretically and empirically analyze the behavior of popular state-of-the-art algorithms and demonstrate that the recourses generated by these algorithms are likely to be invalidated if a small number of data deletion requests (e.g., 1 or 2) warrant updates of the predictive model. For the setting of differentiable models, we suggest a framework to identify a minimal subset of critical training points which, when removed, maximize the fraction of invalidated recourses. Using our framework, we empirically show that the removal of as little as 2 data instances from the training set can invalidate up to 95 percent of all recourses output by popular state-of-the-art algorithms. Thus, our work raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of "the right to an actionable explanation" in the context of the "right to be forgotten", while also providing constructive insights on the determining factors of recourse robustness.
Adapting to Change: Robust Counterfactual Explanations in Dynamic Data Landscapes
Prenkaj, Bardh, Villaizan-Vallelado, Mario, Leemann, Tobias, Kasneci, Gjergji
We introduce a novel semi-supervised Graph Counterfactual Explainer (GCE) methodology, Dynamic GRAph Counterfactual Explainer (DyGRACE). It leverages initial knowledge about the data distribution to search for valid counterfactuals while avoiding using information from potentially outdated decision functions in subsequent time steps. Employing two graph autoencoders (GAEs), DyGRACE learns the representation of each class in a binary classification scenario. The GAEs minimise the reconstruction error between the original graph and its learned representation during training. The method involves (i) optimising a parametric density function (implemented as a logistic regression function) to identify counterfactuals by maximising the factual autoencoder's reconstruction error, (ii) minimising the counterfactual autoencoder's error, and (iii) maximising the similarity between the factual and counterfactual graphs. This semi-supervised approach is independent of an underlying black-box oracle. A logistic regression model is trained on a set of graph pairs to learn weights that aid in finding counterfactuals. At inference, for each unseen graph, the logistic regressor identifies the best counterfactual candidate using these learned weights, while the GAEs can be iteratively updated to represent the continual adaptation of the learned graph representation over iterations. DyGRACE is quite effective and can act as a drift detector, identifying distributional drift based on differences in reconstruction errors between iterations. It avoids reliance on the oracle's predictions in successive iterations, thereby increasing the efficiency of counterfactual discovery. DyGRACE, with its capacity for contrastive learning and drift detection, will offer new avenues for semi-supervised learning and explanation generation.
I Prefer not to Say: Protecting User Consent in Models with Optional Personal Data
Leemann, Tobias, Pawelczyk, Martin, Eberle, Christian Thomas, Kasneci, Gjergji
We examine machine learning models in a setup where individuals have the choice to share optional personal information with a decision-making system, as seen in modern insurance pricing models. Some users consent to their data being used whereas others object and keep their data undisclosed. In this work, we show that the decision not to share data can be considered as information in itself that should be protected to respect users' privacy. This observation raises the overlooked problem of how to ensure that users who protect their personal data do not suffer any disadvantages as a result. To address this problem, we formalize protection requirements for models which only use the information for which active user consent was obtained. This excludes implicit information contained in the decision to share data or not. We offer the first solution to this problem by proposing the notion of Protected User Consent (PUC), which we prove to be loss-optimal under our protection requirement. To learn PUC-compliant models, we devise a model-agnostic data augmentation strategy with finite sample convergence guarantees. Finally, we analyze the implications of PUC on a variety of challenging real-world datasets, tasks, and models.
When are Post-hoc Conceptual Explanations Identifiable?
Leemann, Tobias, Kirchhof, Michael, Rong, Yao, Kasneci, Enkelejda, Kasneci, Gjergji
Interest in understanding and factorizing learned embedding spaces through conceptual explanations is steadily growing. When no human concept labels are available, concept discovery methods search trained embedding spaces for interpretable concepts like object shape or color that can provide post-hoc explanations for decisions. Unlike previous work, we argue that concept discovery should be identifiable, meaning that a number of known concepts can be provably recovered to guarantee reliability of the explanations. As a starting point, we explicitly make the connection between concept discovery and classical methods like Principal Component Analysis and Independent Component Analysis by showing that they can recover independent concepts under non-Gaussian distributions. For dependent concepts, we propose two novel approaches that exploit functional compositionality properties of image-generating processes. Our provably identifiable concept discovery methods substantially outperform competitors on a battery of experiments including hundreds of trained models and dependent concepts, where they exhibit up to 29 % better alignment with the ground truth. Our results highlight the strict conditions under which reliable concept discovery without human labels can be guaranteed and provide a formal foundation for the domain. Our code is available online.
Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generators
Borisov, Vadim, Seßler, Kathrin, Leemann, Tobias, Pawelczyk, Martin, Kasneci, Gjergji
Tabular data is among the oldest and most ubiquitous forms of data. However, the generation of synthetic samples with the original data's characteristics remains a significant challenge for tabular data. While many generative models from the computer vision domain, such as variational autoencoders or generative adversarial networks, have been adapted for tabular data generation, less research has been directed towards recent transformer-based large language models (LLMs), which are also generative in nature. To this end, we propose GReaT (Generation of Realistic Tabular data), which exploits an auto-regressive generative LLM to sample synthetic and yet highly realistic tabular data. Furthermore, GReaT can model tabular data distributions by conditioning on any subset of features; the remaining features are sampled without additional overhead. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in a series of experiments that quantify the validity and quality of the produced data samples from multiple angles. We find that GReaT maintains state-of-the-art performance across numerous real-world and synthetic data sets with heterogeneous feature types coming in various sizes.