Interpretability is critical for machine learning models in high-stakes settings because it allows users to verify the model’s reasoning. In computer vision, prototypical part models (ProtoPNets) have become the dominant model type to meet this need. Users can easily identify flaws in ProtoPNets, but fixing problems in a ProtoPNet requires slow, difficult retraining that is not guaranteed to resolve the issue. This problem is called the "interaction bottleneck." We solve the interaction bottleneck for ProtoPNets by simultaneously finding many equally good ProtoPNets (i.e., a draw from a "Rashomon set"). We show that our framework – called Proto-RSet – quickly produces many accurate, diverse ProtoPNets, allowing users to correct problems in real time while maintaining performance guarantees with respect to the training set. We demonstrate the utility of this method in two settings: 1) removing synthetic bias introduced to a bird-identification model and 2) debugging a skin cancer identification model. This tool empowers nonmachine-learning experts, such as clinicians or domain experts, to quickly refine and correct machine learning models without repeated retraining by machine learning experts.

Decision tree optimization is fundamental to interpretable machine learning. The most popular approach is to greedily search for the best feature at every decision point, which is fast but provably suboptimal. Recent approaches find the global optimum using branch and bound with dynamic programming, showing substantial improvements in accuracy and sparsity at great cost to scalability. An ideal solution would have the accuracy of an optimal method and the scalability of a greedy method. We introduce a family of algorithms called SPLIT (SParse Lookahead for Interpretable Trees) that moves us significantly forward in achieving this ideal balance. We demonstrate that not all sub-problems need to be solved to optimality to find high quality trees; greediness suffices near the leaves. Since each depth adds an exponential number of possible trees, this change makes our algorithms orders of magnitude faster than existing optimal methods, with negligible loss in performance. We extend this algorithm to allow scalable computation of sets of near-optimal trees (i.e., the Rashomon set).

Many applications in machine learning and decision-making rely on procedures to aggregate human preferences. In such tasks, individual express ordinal preferences over a set of items through votes, ratings, or pairwise comparisons. We then summarize their collective preferences as a ranking. Standard methods for preference aggregation are designed to return rankings that arbitrate individual disagreements in ways that are faithful and fair. In this work, we introduce a paradigm for *selective aggregation*, where we can avoid the need to arbitrate dissent by abstaining from comparison. We summarize collective preferences as a *selective ranking* -- i.e., a partial order where we can only compare items where at least $100\cdot(1 - \tau)\%$ of individuals agree. We develop algorithms to build selective rankings that achieve all possible trade-offs between comparability and disagreement, and derive formal guarantees on their safety and stability. We conduct an extensive set of experiments on real-world datasets to benchmark our approach and demonstrate its functionality. Our results show selective aggregation can promote transparency and robustness by revealing disagreement and abstaining from arbitration.

Decision trees are widely used for interpretable machine learning due to their clearly structured reasoning process. However, this structure belies a challenge we refer to as predictive equivalence: a given tree’s decision boundary can be represented by many different decision trees. The presence of models with identical decision boundaries but different evaluation processes makes model selection challenging. The models will have different variable importance and behave differently in the presence of missing values, but most optimization procedures will arbitrarily choose one such model to return. We present a boolean logical representation of decision trees that does not exhibit predictive equivalence and is faithful to the underlying decision boundary. We apply our representation to several downstream machine learning tasks. Using our representation, we show that decision trees are surprisingly robust to test-time missingness of feature values; we address predictive equivalence’s impact on quantifying variable importance; and we present an algorithm to optimize the cost of reaching predictions.

Many important datasets contain samples that are missing one or more feature values. Maintaining the interpretability of machine learning models in the presence of such missing data is challenging. Singly or multiply imputing missing values complicates the model’s mapping from features to labels. On the other hand, reasoning on indicator variables that represent missingness introduces a potentially large number of additional terms, sacrificing sparsity. We solve these problems with M-GAM, a sparse, generalized, additive modeling approach that incorporates missingness indicators and their interaction terms while maintaining sparsity through $\ell_0$ regularization. We show that M-GAM provides similar or superior accuracy to prior methods while significantly improving sparsity relative to either imputation or naïve inclusion of indicator variables.

Online discussion boards, designed to facilitate learning from peers and instructors in an accessible space, are a vital part of course design, especially in large scale computer science classes. Previous work has shown that women in computer science tend to use anonymity more often than men on these boards, a trend not found in humanities, social science or business courses. In this work, we build on these findings using an intersectional lens, analyzing both gender and race/ethnicity. We find this combined analysis reveals differences in anonymity that are not apparent when examining gender alone. For example, we find a significantly greater difference in anonymity use between Hispanic men and women than would be expected from analyzing race/ethnicity and gender independently. We additionally analyze type of content (e.g., questions, answers), course, platform, and data source to characterize the many factors at play in measuring students’ choice to participate anonymously. In doing so, we show that different approaches used in prior work for eliciting information on gender — whether using registrar data, a survey, or imputing gender based on name — changes how over of students are classified, particularly affecting nonbinary students and Asian students. Understanding when students participate anonymously can help educators and platform designers to make students’ experience of online discussion boards more welcoming.

Recent research in computing has shown that student performance on prerequisite course content varies widely, even when students continue to progress further through the computing curriculum. Our work investigates instructors' perspectives on the purpose of prerequisite courses and whether that purpose is being fulfilled. In order to identify the range of instructor views, we interviewed twenty-one computer science instructors, at two institutions, that teach a variety of courses in their respective departments. We conducted a phenomenographic analysis on the interview transcripts, which revealed a wide variety of views on prerequisite courses. The responses shed light on various issues with prerequisite course knowledge, as well as issues around responsibility and conflicting pressures on instructors. These issues arise at the department level, as well as with individual course offerings.

Sparse decision tree optimization has been one of the most fundamental problems in AI since its inception and is a challenge at the core of interpretable machine learning. Sparse decision tree optimization is computationally hard, and despite steady effort since the 1960's, breakthroughs have been made on the problem only within the past few years, primarily on the problem of finding optimal sparse decision trees. However, current state-of-the-art algorithms often require impractical amounts of computation time and memory to find optimal or near-optimal trees for some real-world datasets, particularly those having several continuous-valued features. Given that the search spaces of these decision tree optimization problems are massive, can we practically hope to find a sparse decision tree that competes in accuracy with a black box machine learning model? We address this problem via smart guessing strategies that can be applied to any optimal branch-and-bound-based decision tree algorithm. The guesses come from knowledge gleaned from black box models. We show that by using these guesses, we can reduce the run time by multiple orders of magnitude while providing bounds on how far the resulting trees can deviate from the black box's accuracy and expressive power. Our approach enables guesses about how to bin continuous features, the size of the tree, and lower bounds on the error for the optimal decision tree. Our experiments show that in many cases we can rapidly construct sparse decision trees that match the accuracy of black box models. To summarize: when you are having trouble optimizing, just guess.