André F. Cruz

Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation. Interpreting our findings, we recall a widely overlooked theoretical argument, present seven years ago, that accurately predicted what we observe.

Machine Learning (ML) algorithms based on gradient boosted decision trees (GBDT) are still favored on many tabular data tasks across various mission critical applications, from healthcare to finance. However, GBDT algorithms are not free of the risk of bias and discriminatory decision-making. Despite GBDT’s popularity and the rapid pace of research in fair ML, existing in-processing fair ML methods are either inapplicable to GBDT, incur in significant train time overhead, or are inadequate for problems with high class imbalance. We present FairGBM, a learning framework for training GBDT under fairness constraints with little to no impact on predictive performance when compared to unconstrained LightGBM. Since common fairness metrics are non-differentiable, we employ a "proxy-Lagrangian" formulation using smooth convex error rate proxies to enable gradient-based optimization. Additionally, our open-source implementation shows an order of magnitude speedup in training time when compared with related work, a pivotal aspect to foster the widespread adoption of FairGBM by real-world practitioners.

Considerable research effort has been guided towards algorithmic fairness but real-world adoption of bias reduction techniques is still scarce. Existing methods are either metric- or model-specific, require access to sensitive attributes at inference time, or carry high development or deployment costs. This work explores the unfairness that emerges when optimizing ML models solely for predictive performance, and how to mitigate it with a simple and easily deployed intervention: fairness-aware hyperparameter optimization (HO). We propose and evaluate fairness-aware variants of three popular HO algorithms: Fair Random Search, Fair TPE, and Fairband. We validate our approach on a real-world bank account opening fraud case-study, as well as on three datasets from the fairness literature. Results show that, without extra training cost, it is feasible to find models with 111% mean fairness increase and just 6% decrease in performance when compared with fairness-blind HO.

Although recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are state-of-the-art in numerous sequential decision-making tasks, there has been little research on explaining their predictions. In this work, we present TimeSHAP, a model-agnostic recurrent explainer that builds upon KernelSHAP and extends it to the sequential domain. TimeSHAP computes feature-, timestep-, and cell-level attributions. As sequences may be arbitrarily long, we further propose a pruning method that is shown to dramatically decrease both its computational cost and the variance of its attributions. We use TimeSHAP to explain the predictions of a real-world bank account takeover fraud detection RNN model, and draw key insights from its explanations: i) the model identifies important features and events aligned with what fraud analysts consider cues for account takeover; ii) positive predicted sequences can be pruned to only 10% of the original length, as older events have residual attribution values; iii) the most recent input event of positive predictions only contributes on average to 41% of the model’s score; iv) notably high attribution to client’s age, upheld on higher false positive rates for older clients.