ai-critic 1.1.0__tar.gz → 2.0.0__tar.gz

ai_critic-2.0.0/PKG-INFO

@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+Metadata-Version: 2.4
+Name: ai-critic
+Version: 2.0.0
+Summary: Fast AI evaluator for scikit-learn models
+Author-email: Luiz Seabra <filipedemarco@yahoo.com>
+Requires-Python: >=3.9
+Description-Content-Type: text/markdown
+Requires-Dist: numpy
+Requires-Dist: scikit-learn
+
+# ai-critic 🧠
+
+## The Quality Gate for Machine Learning Models
+
+**ai-critic** is a specialized **decision-making system** designed to evaluate whether a machine learning model is **safe, reliable, and trustworthy enough** to be deployed in real-world environments.
+
+Unlike traditional ML evaluation tools that focus almost exclusively on *performance metrics*, **ai-critic** operates as a **Quality Gate** — a final checkpoint that actively probes models to uncover **hidden risks** that frequently cause silent failures in production.
+
+> **ai-critic does not ask *“How accurate is this model?”***
+> It asks ***“Can this model be trusted in the real world?”***
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 What Problem Does ai-critic Solve?
+
+In production, most ML failures are **not accuracy problems**.
+
+They are caused by:
+
+* Data leakage hidden inside features
+* Overfitting disguised as strong validation scores
+* Models that collapse under small noise
+* Models that rely on a single fragile signal
+* Configuration choices that look fine — but are structurally unsafe
+
+These failures usually appear **after deployment**, when it is already expensive or dangerous to fix them.
+
+**ai-critic exists to catch these failures *before* deployment.**
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 Getting Started (The Basics)
+
+This section is intentionally designed for **beginners**, **students**, and **engineers under time pressure**.
+
+If you only want a **fast, conservative verdict**, this is all you need.
+
+---
+
+### Installation
+
+Install directly from PyPI:
+
+```bash
+pip install ai-critic
+```
+
+Python ≥ 3.8 is recommended.
+
+---
+
+### The Quick Verdict
+
+With just a few lines of code, you can obtain:
+
+* An **executive-level verdict**
+* A **risk classification**
+* A **deployment recommendation**
+
+```python
+from ai_critic import AICritic
+from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
+from sklearn.datasets import make_classification
+
+# 1. Prepare data and model
+X, y = make_classification(
+    n_samples=1000,
+    n_features=20,
+    random_state=42
+)
+
+model = RandomForestClassifier(
+    max_depth=5,
+    random_state=42
+)
+
+# 2. Initialize the Critic
+critic = AICritic(model, X, y)
+
+# 3. Run the audit
+report = critic.evaluate(view="executive")
+
+print(f"Verdict: {report['verdict']}")
+print(f"Risk Level: {report['risk_level']}")
+print(f"Deploy Recommended: {report['deploy_recommended']}")
+print(f"Main Reason: {report['main_reason']}")
+```
+
+**Example Output:**
+
+```text
+Verdict: ⚠️ Risky
+Risk Level: medium
+Deploy Recommended: False
+Main Reason: Structural, robustness, or dependency-related risks detected.
+```
+
+This verdict is intentionally **conservative by design**.
+
+> If **ai-critic approves deployment**, it means **no meaningful risks were detected** by multiple independent heuristics.
+
+---
+
+## 🧭 How to Read the Verdict
+
+| Field                | Meaning                 |
+| -------------------- | ----------------------- |
+| `verdict`            | Human-readable summary  |
+| `risk_level`         | low / medium / high     |
+| `deploy_recommended` | Final gate decision     |
+| `main_reason`        | Primary blocking factor |
+
+The goal is clarity, not ambiguity.
+
+---
+
+## 💡 Understanding the Critique (Intermediate Level)
+
+This section is for **data scientists**, **ML engineers**, and **students** who want to understand *why* the model was flagged — and how to improve it.
+
+---
+
+### The Four Pillars of the Audit
+
+**ai-critic** evaluates models across **four independent risk dimensions**.
+
+| Pillar             | What It Detects                  | Why It Matters       |
+| ------------------ | -------------------------------- | -------------------- |
+| 📊 Data Integrity  | Leakage, correlations, shortcuts | Inflated performance |
+| 🧠 Model Structure | Over-complexity, unsafe configs  | Poor generalization  |
+| 📈 Performance     | Suspicious CV behavior           | False confidence     |
+| 🧪 Robustness      | Noise sensitivity                | Production collapse  |
+
+Each pillar produces **signals**, not binary judgments.
+
+Those signals are later aggregated by the **deployment gate**.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 Data Integrity Analysis
+
+This pillar focuses on **the relationship between features and the target**.
+
+It answers questions like:
+
+* Are some features *too predictive*?
+* Are there suspicious correlations?
+* Does performance collapse when a single feature is disturbed?
+
+These are classic symptoms of **data leakage** and **shortcut learning**.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 Model Structure Analysis
+
+A model can be accurate and still be unsafe.
+
+Structural analysis looks for:
+
+* Excessive depth
+* Over-parameterization
+* Configuration choices that amplify variance
+* Inconsistent bias–variance tradeoffs
+
+This is especially important for:
+
+* Decision trees
+* Boosting models
+* Neural networks with limited data
+
+---
+
+## 📈 Performance Sanity Checks
+
+Rather than optimizing metrics, **ai-critic questions them**.
+
+It checks:
+
+* Cross-validation stability
+* Variance across folds
+* Learning curve consistency
+* Performance under perturbations
+
+A strong score that behaves strangely is treated as **a warning, not a success**.
+
+---
+
+## 🧪 Robustness Testing (Noise Injection)
+
+Production data is **never clean**.
+
+This test injects controlled noise into inputs and measures degradation.
+
+```python
+robustness = report["details"]["robustness"]
+
+print(f"Original CV Score: {robustness['cv_score_original']}")
+print(f"Noisy CV Score: {robustness['cv_score_noisy']}")
+print(f"Performance Drop: {robustness['performance_drop']}")
+print(f"Verdict: {robustness['verdict']}")
+```
+
+Possible outcomes:
+
+* `stable` → acceptable degradation
+* `fragile` → high sensitivity
+* `misleading` → performance likely inflated
+
+---
+
+## 🔍 Explainability & Feature Sensitivity
+
+Accuracy alone hides *why* a model works.
+
+The explainability module performs **feature sensitivity analysis** to detect:
+
+* Feature-level leakage
+* Over-reliance on a single signal
+* Structural shortcuts
+
+---
+
+### How Explainability Works
+
+For each feature:
+
+1. The feature is randomly permuted.
+2. The model is re-evaluated.
+3. Performance drop is measured.
+
+Large drops indicate **critical dependency**.
+
+This approach is:
+
+* Model-agnostic
+* Lightweight
+* Framework-independent
+* Interpretable by humans
+
+---
+
+### Explainability Verdicts
+
+| Verdict                | Meaning                  |
+| ---------------------- | ------------------------ |
+| `stable`               | Balanced feature usage   |
+| `feature_dependency`   | Few features dominate    |
+| `feature_leakage_risk` | Single feature dominates |
+
+These verdicts **directly affect**:
+
+* Deployment decision
+* Confidence score
+* Recommendations
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 Recommendations Engine (New)
+
+**ai-critic does not stop at “deploy or not”.**
+
+It generates **actionable recommendations**, such as:
+
+* “Reduce `max_depth`”
+* “Increase regularization”
+* “Likely feature leakage detected”
+* “Model shows structural overfitting”
+* “High noise sensitivity — retrain with augmentation”
+
+These recommendations are **rule-based + data-driven**, not LLM hallucinations.
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ Deployment Gate
+
+The final decision is produced by `deploy_decision()`.
+
+```python
+decision = critic.deploy_decision()
+
+print(decision["deploy"])
+print(decision["risk_level"])
+print(decision["confidence"])
+print(decision["blocking_issues"])
+```
+
+Conceptually:
+
+* **Hard blockers** → deployment denied
+* **Soft blockers** → deployment discouraged
+* **Confidence score (0–1)** → heuristic trust
+
+---
+
+## 🔄 Feedback Loop & Learning Critic
+
+**ai-critic improves over time**.
+
+Each evaluation can be stored as feedback:
+
+* Model config
+* Signals
+* Final outcome
+* Human override (optional)
+
+This enables:
+
+* Meta-learning
+* Better future recommendations
+* Context-aware criticism
+
+---
+
+## 🧪 Session Tracking & Comparison
+
+You can compare models over time:
+
+```python
+critic_v1 = AICritic(model, X, y, session="v1")
+critic_v1.evaluate()
+
+critic_v2 = AICritic(model, X, y, session="v2")
+critic_v2.evaluate()
+
+critic_v2.compare_with("v1")
+```
+
+Use cases:
+
+* Regression detection
+* Risk drift
+* Governance audits
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ Multi-Framework Support
+
+The same API works for:
+
+* scikit-learn
+* PyTorch
+* TensorFlow
+
+Adapters handle training, evaluation, and probing internally.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 Design Philosophy
+
+**ai-critic is intentionally skeptical.**
+
+It assumes:
+
+* Metrics can lie
+* Data is imperfect
+* Models fail silently
+* Confidence must be earned
+
+This makes it ideal as a **final gate**, not a tuning toy.
+
+---
+
+## 🛡️ What ai-critic Is NOT
+
+* ❌ A hyperparameter optimizer
+* ❌ A leaderboard benchmark tool
+* ❌ A replacement for domain expertise
+* ❌ A magic “approve all” system
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 Final Note
+
+> **ai-critic is not here to make models look good.**
+> It exists to **prevent bad models from looking good enough to deploy**.
+
+A failed audit does **not** mean your model is bad.
+It means your model is **not yet safe to trust**.
+
+That distinction is everything.