skip to main content
10.1145/3340531.3411881acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Shapley Values and Meta-Explanations for Probabilistic Graphical Model Inference

Published: 19 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Probabilistic graphical models, such as Markov random fields (MRF), exploit dependencies among random variables to model a rich family of joint probability distributions. Inference algorithms, such as belief propagation (BP), can effectively compute the marginal posteriors for decision making. Nonetheless, inferences involve sophisticated probability calculations and are difficult for humans to interpret. Among all existing explanation methods for MRFs, no method is designed for fair attributions of an inference outcome to elements on the MRF where the inference takes place. Shapley values provide rigorous attributions but so far have not been studied on MRFs. We thus define Shapley values for MRFs to capture both probabilistic and topological contributions of the variables on MRFs. We theoretically characterize the new definition regarding independence, equal contribution, additivity, and submodularity. As brute-force computation of the Shapley values is challenging, we propose GraphShapley, an approximation algorithm that exploits the decomposability of Shapley values, the structure of MRFs, and the iterative nature of BP inference to speed up the computation. In practice, we propose meta-explanations to explain the Shapley values and make them more accessible and trustworthy to human users. On four synthetic and nine real-world MRFs, we demonstrate that GraphShapley generates sensible and practical explanations.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3340531.3411881.mp4)
Presentation Video.

References

[1]
Julius Adebayo, Justin Gilmer, Michael Muelly, Ian Goodfellow, Moritz Hardt, and Been Kim. 2018. Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps. In NeurIPS.
[2]
Marco Ancona, Cengiz Oztireli, and Markus Gross. 2019. Explaining Deep Neural Networks with a Polynomial Time Algorithm for Shapley Values Approximation. In ICML.
[3]
Javier Castro, Daniel Gó mez, and Juan Tejada. 2009. Polynomial calculation of the Shapley value based on sampling. Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 36, 5 (2009), 1726--1730.
[4]
Hei Chan and Adnan Darwiche. 2005. Sensitivity analysis in Markov networks. In IJCAI.
[5]
Chao Chen, Yifei Liu, Xi Zhang, and Sihong Xie. 2019 a. Scalable Explanation of Inferences on Large Graphs. In ICDM.
[6]
Jianbo Chen, Le Song, Martin J. Wainwrightand, and Michael I. Jordan. 2019 b. L-shapley and c-shapley: Efficient model interpretation for structured data. In ICLR.
[7]
Adnan Darwiche. 2003. A differential approach to inference in Bayesian networks. Journal of the ACM (JACM) (2003), 280--305.
[8]
Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, and Xia Hu. 2019. Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learning. Commun. ACM, Vol. 63, 1 (2019), 68--77.
[9]
Papachristoudis Georgios and Fisher III John. 2015. Adaptive Belief Propagation. In ICML.
[10]
Amirata Ghorbani, Abubakar Abid, and James Y Zou. 2017. Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragile. In AAAI.
[11]
Amirata Ghorbani and James Zou. 2019. Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learning. In ICML.
[12]
L H Gilpin, D Bau, B Z Yuan, A Bajwa, M Specter, and L Kagal. 2018. Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning. In DSAA. 80--89.
[13]
Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Franco Turini, Dino Pedreschi, and Fosca Giannotti. 2018. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 51 (2018), 93:1--93:42.
[14]
Qiang Huang, Makoto Yamada, Yuan Tian, Dinesh Singh, Dawei Yin, and Yi Chang. 2020. GraphLIME: Local Interpretable Model Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. (2020).
[15]
Sarthak Jain and Byron C Wallace. 2019. A ttention is not E xplanation. In NAACL.
[16]
K. Jha, Y. Wang, G. Xun, and A. Zhang. 2018. Interpretable Word Embeddings for Medical Domain. In ICDM.
[17]
Ruoxi Jia, David Dao, Boxin Wang, Frances Ann Hubis, Nick Hynes, Nezihe Merve Gurel, Bo Li, Ce Zhang, Dawn Song, and Costas Spanos. 2019. Towards Efficient Data Valuation Based on the Shapley Value. In AISTATS. 1167--1176.
[18]
Murphy Kevin. 2001 (accessed April 25, 2020). List of Bayesian Network Software. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/murphyk/Bayes/old.bnsoft.html
[19]
Daphne Koller and Nir Friedman. 2009. Probabilistic graphical model: principles and techniques .MIT Press.
[20]
Andrew McCallum, Dayne Freitag, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2000. Maximum Entropy Markov Models for Information Extraction and Segmentation. In ICML.
[21]
Tomasz P. Michalak, Karthik .V. Aadithya, Piotr L. Szczepa'ski, Balaraman Ravindran, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2013. Effcient Computation of the Shapley Value for Game-Theoretic Network Centrality. JAIR, Vol. 46 (2013), 607--650.
[22]
Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 267 (2019), 1--38.
[23]
Brent Mittelstadt, Chris Russell, and Sandra Wachter. 2019. Explaining Explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
[24]
Galileo Mark Namata, Ben London, and Lise Getoor. 2016. Collective graph identification. ACM TKDD, Vol. 10, 3 (2016), 25.
[25]
G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher. 1978. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions. Mathematical Programming, Vol. 14, 1 (Dec 1978), 265--294.
[26]
Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab.
[27]
Shashank Pandit, Duen Horng Chau, Samuel Wang, and Christos Faloutsos. 2007. Netprobe: A Fast and Scalable System for Fraud Detection in Online Auction Networks. In WWW.
[28]
Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In SIGKDD.
[29]
Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Dan Goldstein, Jake Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability.
[30]
Danish Pruthi, Mansi Gupta, Bhuwan Dhingra, Graham Neubig, and Zachary Chase Lipton. 2019. Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based Explanations. ArXiv, Vol. abs/1909.0 (2019).
[31]
Shebuti Rayana and Leman Akoglu. 2015. Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata. In SIGKDD.
[32]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In SIGKDD.
[33]
Andrew Slavin Ross, Michael C Hughes, and Finale Doshi-Velez. 2017. Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanations. In IJCAI.
[34]
L Shapley. 1953. A Value for n-Person Games. Contributions to the Theory of Games (1953), 31--40.
[35]
Avanti Shrikumar, Peyton Greenside, and Anshul Kundaje. 2017. Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences. In ICML.
[36]
Oskar Skibski, Talal Rahwan, Tomasz P. Michalak, and Michael Wooldridge. 2019. Enumerating Connected Subgraphs and Computing the Myerson and Shapley Values in Graph-Restricted Games. ACM TIST, Vol. 10, 2 (2019), 15.
[37]
Erik Strumbelj and Igor Kononenko. 2010. An Efficient Explanation of Individual Classifications using Game Theory. JMLR (2010).
[38]
Erik vS trumbelj and Igor Kononenko. 2014. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowledge and Information Systems, Vol. 41, 3 (2014), 647--665.
[39]
Henri Jacques Suermondt. 1992. Explanation in Bayesian Belief Networks. Ph.D. Dissertation.
[40]
Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks. In ICML.
[41]
Lei Tang and Huan Liu. 2009. Relational learning via latent social dimensions. In SIGKDD.
[42]
Jeroen Van Bouwel and Erik Weber. 2002. Remote Causes, Bad Explanations? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 32, 4 (2002), 437--449.
[43]
Xifeng Yan and Jiawei Han. 2002. gspan: Graph-based substructure pattern mining. In ICDM.
[44]
Chih-Kuan Yeh, Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Arun Sai Suggala, David W Inouye, and Pradeep D Ravikumar. 2019. On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity of Explanations. In NeurIPS.
[45]
Ming Yin, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models (CHI).
[46]
Rex Ying, Dylan Bourgeois, Jiaxuan You, Marinka Zitnik, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. GNN Explainer: A Tool for Post-hoc Explanation of Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS.
[47]
KiJung Yoon, Renjie Liao, Yuwen Xiong, Lisa Zhang, Ethan Fetaya, Raquel Urtasun, Richard Zemel, and Xaq Pitkow. 2018. Inference in probabilistic graphical models by graph neural networks. In ICLR workshop.
[48]
Xinyang Zhang, Ningfei Wang, Shouling Ji, Hua Shen, and Ting Wang. 2018. Interpretable Deep Learning under Fire. ArXiv, Vol. abs/1812.0 (2018).

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)ContrXTInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.01681:C(103-115)Online publication date: 6-May-2022
  • (2021)The Shapley Value of Classifiers in Ensemble GamesProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3459637.3482302(1558-1567)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2021

Index Terms

  1. Shapley Values and Meta-Explanations for Probabilistic Graphical Model Inference

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CIKM '20: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
    October 2020
    3619 pages
    ISBN:9781450368599
    DOI:10.1145/3340531
    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 the author(s) 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: 19 October 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. explainability
    2. graphical models

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • NSF
    • Natural Science Foundation of China
    • 111 Project
    • National Key Research and Development Program of China

    Conference

    CIKM '20
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

    Upcoming Conference

    CIKM '25

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)40
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)ContrXTInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.01681:C(103-115)Online publication date: 6-May-2022
    • (2021)The Shapley Value of Classifiers in Ensemble GamesProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3459637.3482302(1558-1567)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2021

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media