Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
100 lines (76 loc) · 5.76 KB

Audit.md

File metadata and controls

100 lines (76 loc) · 5.76 KB

Auditing graph data or graph-based systems without Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) involves human-driven methods to evaluate accuracy, fairness, transparency, and ethical alignment. Below are key strategies for auditing graphs manually or with non-RLHF tools:

1. Visual Inspection & Exploration

Humans can directly inspect graph structures using visualization tools to identify anomalies, biases, or errors:

  • Tools: Software like Gephi, Cytoscape, or Neo4j Bloom.
  • What to Check:
    • Unexpected Patterns: E.g., overly dense clusters, disconnected components, or outliers.
    • Edge/Node Attributes: Verify relationships (e.g., "Does this social network edge truly represent a friendship?").
    • Bias Indicators: Overrepresentation of certain groups in specific subgraphs (e.g., gender bias in recommendation graphs).

2. Statistical Analysis

Compute metrics to quantify graph properties and compare them against domain expectations:

  • Degree Distribution: Check if node connections follow expected patterns (e.g., power law in social networks).
  • Centrality Measures: Identify influential nodes (e.g., PageRank for authority, Betweenness for bottlenecks).
  • Homophily: Measure if nodes with similar attributes (e.g., age, location) are disproportionately connected.
  • Clustering Coefficient: Assess community structure (e.g., "Do users from the same country cluster together?").

3. Rule-Based Auditing

Define explicit rules to validate graph integrity:

  • Syntax Checks:
    • Ensure nodes/edges have valid IDs and attributes (e.g., no null values).
    • Validate edge directionality (e.g., "CEO → Company" should not be reversed).
  • Domain-Specific Logic:
    • In a knowledge graph, enforce ontological consistency (e.g., "A person cannot be born in two countries").
    • In a transaction graph, flag edges violating business rules (e.g., "User A cannot transfer $1M daily").

4. Bias and Fairness Evaluation

Manually audit graphs for discriminatory patterns:

  • Attribute Parity: Check if protected groups (e.g., gender, race) are fairly represented in key subgraphs (e.g., job recommendations).
  • Edge Fairness: Analyze if edges (e.g., loans approved, job offers) disproportionately favor/disfavor certain groups.
  • Counterfactual Testing: Ask, "Would changing a node’s attribute (e.g., gender) alter its connections or outcomes?"

5. Data Provenance & Lineage

Trace the origin and transformations of graph data:

  • Source Validation: Confirm data sources (e.g., "Are social media edges from verified accounts?").
  • Update Logs: Audit timestamps and edit histories to detect tampering or stale data.
  • Privacy Checks: Ensure sensitive attributes (e.g., medical conditions in a patient graph) are anonymized.

6. Stakeholder Feedback

Engage domain experts or end-users to validate graph utility:

  • Expert Review:
    • Biologists review protein-protein interaction graphs for accuracy.
    • Fraud analysts verify suspicious transaction subgraphs.
  • User Surveys: Ask users if recommendations/connections in a social or e-commerce graph align with their needs.

7. Anomaly Detection (Human-in-the-Loop)

Combine automated detection with human judgment:

  • Flagged Anomalies: Use algorithms to highlight unusual nodes/edges (e.g., sudden spikes in transactions) and have humans investigate.
  • Red-Teaming: Deliberately inject synthetic anomalies (e.g., fake edges) to test auditability.

8. Ethical & Compliance Checks

Ensure graphs adhere to regulations and ethical norms:

  • GDPR/CCPA Compliance: Verify that graphs don’t expose personally identifiable information (PII).
  • Transparency: Document graph construction logic (e.g., "Why are these two users connected?").
  • Impact Assessments: Evaluate risks (e.g., "Could this recommendation graph amplify polarization?").

Example Auditing Workflow

Scenario: Auditing a job recommendation graph for fairness.

  1. Visualize the graph to see if certain demographics (e.g., women) have fewer connections to high-paying roles.
  2. Compute Homophily: Check if recommendations favor candidates with similar attributes (e.g., alma mater).
  3. Rule Check: Ensure no edges violate anti-discrimination laws (e.g., excluding candidates based on age).
  4. Stakeholder Feedback: Survey job seekers about recommendation relevance.
  5. Adjust: Manually prune biased edges or reweight connections.

Challenges in Manual Auditing

  • Scalability: Large graphs (e.g., social networks with billions of edges) are impractical to audit manually.
  • Subjectivity: Human auditors may introduce personal biases.
  • Complexity: Interpreting high-dimensional graph data requires domain expertise.

Tools to Assist Human Auditors

  • Graph Query Languages (e.g., Cypher in Neo4j) to extract specific subgraphs for inspection.
  • Dashboard Analytics: Tools like Tableau or Graphistry for interactive exploration.
  • Open-Source Libraries: NetworkX (Python) for metric computation, PyVis for visualization.

Conclusion

Human auditing of graphs relies on visual exploration, statistical rigor, rule-based validation, and stakeholder collaboration to ensure accuracy, fairness, and compliance. While manual methods lack the scalability of RLHF or automated systems, they remain critical for high-stakes domains (e.g., healthcare, finance) where transparency and accountability are paramount. Combining these techniques with lightweight automation (e.g., anomaly alerts) can enhance efficiency without sacrificing human oversight.