arXiv subjects

Marcin Detyniecki

Publications and source records attributed to Marcin Detyniecki.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

Post-processing fairness with minimal changes

In this paper, we introduce a novel post-processing algorithm that is both model-agnostic and does not require the sensitive attribute at test time. In addition, our algorithm is explicitly designed to enforce minimal changes between biased and debiased predictions; a property that, while highly desirable, is rarely prioritized as an explicit objective in fairness literature. Our approach leverages a multiplicative factor applied to the logit value of probability scores produced by a black-box classifier. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method through empirical evaluations, comparing its performance against other four debiasing algorithms on two widely used datasets in fairness research.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Understanding Prediction Discrepancies in Machine Learning Classifiers

A multitude of classifiers can be trained on the same data to achieve similar performances during test time, while having learned significantly different classification patterns. This phenomenon, which we call prediction discrepancies, is often associated with the blind selection of one model instead of another with similar performances. When making a choice, the machine learning practitioner has no understanding on the differences between models, their limits, where they agree and where they don't. But his/her choice will result in concrete consequences for instances to be classified in the discrepancy zone, since the final decision will be based on the selected classification pattern. Besides the arbitrary nature of the result, a bad choice could have further negative consequences such as loss of opportunity or lack of fairness. This paper proposes to address this question by analyzing the prediction discrepancies in a pool of best-performing models trained on the same data. A model-agnostic algorithm, DIG, is proposed to capture and explain discrepancies locally, to enable the practitioner to make the best educated decision when selecting a model by anticipating its potential undesired consequences. All the code to reproduce the experiments is available.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness

Most research on fair machine learning has prioritized optimizing criteria such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Despite these efforts, there remains a limited understanding of how different bias mitigation strategies affect individual predictions and whether they introduce arbitrariness into the debiasing process. This paper addresses these gaps by exploring whether models that achieve comparable fairness and accuracy metrics impact the same individuals and mitigate bias in a consistent manner. We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions: Impact Size (how many people were affected), Change Direction (positive versus negative changes), Decision Rates (impact on models' acceptance rates), Affected Subpopulations (who was affected), and Neglected Subpopulations (where unfairness persists). This framework is intended to help practitioners understand the impacts of debiasing processes and make better-informed decisions regarding model selection. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

OptiGrad: A Fair and more Efficient Price Elasticity Optimization via a Gradient Based Learning

This paper presents a novel approach to optimizing profit margins in non-life insurance markets through a gradient descent-based method, targeting three key objectives: 1) maximizing profit margins, 2) ensuring conversion rates, and 3) enforcing fairness criteria such as demographic parity (DP). Traditional pricing optimization, which heavily lean on linear and semi definite programming, encounter challenges in balancing profitability and fairness. These challenges become especially pronounced in situations that necessitate continuous rate adjustments and the incorporation of fairness criteria. Specifically, indirect Ratebook optimization, a widely-used method for new business price setting, relies on predictor models such as XGBoost or GLMs/GAMs to estimate on downstream individually optimized prices. However, this strategy is prone to sequential errors and struggles to effectively manage optimizations for continuous rate scenarios. In practice, to save time actuaries frequently opt for optimization within discrete intervals (e.g., range of [-20\%, +20\%] with fix increments) leading to approximate estimations. Moreover, to circumvent infeasible solutions they often use relaxed constraints leading to suboptimal pricing strategies. The reverse-engineered nature of traditional models complicates the enforcement of fairness and can lead to biased outcomes. Our method addresses these challenges by employing a direct optimization strategy in the continuous space of rates and by embedding fairness through an adversarial predictor model. This innovation not only reduces sequential errors and simplifies the complexities found in traditional models but also directly integrates fairness measures into the commercial premium calculation. We demonstrate improved margin performance and stronger enforcement of fairness highlighting the critical need to evolve existing pricing strategies.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

On the Fairness ROAD: Robust Optimization for Adversarial Debiasing

In the field of algorithmic fairness, significant attention has been put on group fairness criteria, such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Nevertheless, these objectives, measured as global averages, have raised concerns about persistent local disparities between sensitive groups. In this work, we address the problem of local fairness, which ensures that the predictor is unbiased not only in terms of expectations over the whole population, but also within any subregion of the feature space, unknown at training time. To enforce this objective, we introduce ROAD, a novel approach that leverages the Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) framework within a fair adversarial learning objective, where an adversary tries to infer the sensitive attribute from the predictions. Using an instance-level re-weighting strategy, ROAD is designed to prioritize inputs that are likely to be locally unfair, i.e. where the adversary faces the least difficulty in reconstructing the sensitive attribute. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method: it achieves Pareto dominance with respect to local fairness and accuracy for a given global fairness level across three standard datasets, and also enhances fairness generalization under distribution shift.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Open and Linked Data Model for Carbon Footprint Scenarios

Carbon footprint quantification is key to well-informed decision making over carbon reduction potential, both for individuals and for companies. Many carbon footprint case studies for products and services have been circulated recently. Due to the complex relationships within each scenario, however, the underlying assumptions often are difficult to understand. Also, re-using and adapting a scenario to local or individual circumstances is not a straightforward task. To overcome these challenges, we propose an open and linked data model for carbon footprint scenarios which improves data quality and transparency by design. We demonstrate the implementation of our idea with a web-based data interpreter prototype.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Achieving Diversity in Counterfactual Explanations: a Review and Discussion

In the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual examples explain to a user the predictions of a trained decision model by indicating the modifications to be made to the instance so as to change its associated prediction. These counterfactual examples are generally defined as solutions to an optimization problem whose cost function combines several criteria that quantify desiderata for a good explanation meeting user needs. A large variety of such appropriate properties can be considered, as the user needs are generally unknown and differ from one user to another; their selection and formalization is difficult. To circumvent this issue, several approaches propose to generate, rather than a single one, a set of diverse counterfactual examples to explain a prediction. This paper proposes a review of the numerous, sometimes conflicting, definitions that have been proposed for this notion of diversity. It discusses their underlying principles as well as the hypotheses on the user needs they rely on and proposes to categorize them along several dimensions (explicit vs implicit, universe in which they are defined, level at which they apply), leading to the identification of further research challenges on this topic.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learning

At the core of insurance business lies classification between risky and non-risky insureds, actuarial fairness meaning that risky insureds should contribute more and pay a higher premium than non-risky or less-risky ones. Actuaries, therefore, use econometric or machine learning techniques to classify, but the distinction between a fair actuarial classification and "discrimination" is subtle. For this reason, there is a growing interest about fairness and discrimination in the actuarial community Lindholm, Richman, Tsanakas, and Wuthrich (2022). Presumably, non-sensitive characteristics can serve as substitutes or proxies for protected attributes. For example, the color and model of a car, combined with the driver's occupation, may lead to an undesirable gender bias in the prediction of car insurance prices. Surprisingly, we will show that debiasing the predictor alone may be insufficient to maintain adequate accuracy (1). Indeed, the traditional pricing model is currently built in a two-stage structure that considers many potentially biased components such as car or geographic risks. We will show that this traditional structure has significant limitations in achieving fairness. For this reason, we have developed a novel pricing model approach. Recently some approaches have Blier-Wong, Cossette, Lamontagne, and Marceau (2021); Wuthrich and Merz (2021) shown the value of autoencoders in pricing. In this paper, we will show that (2) this can be generalized to multiple pricing factors (geographic, car type), (3) it perfectly adapted for a fairness context (since it allows to debias the set of pricing components): We extend this main idea to a general framework in which a single whole pricing model is trained by generating the geographic and car pricing components needed to predict the pure premium while mitigating the unwanted bias according to the desired metric.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

On the Granularity of Explanations in Model Agnostic NLP Interpretability

Current methods for Black-Box NLP interpretability, like LIME or SHAP, are based on altering the text to interpret by removing words and modeling the Black-Box response. In this paper, we outline limitations of this approach when using complex BERT-based classifiers: The word-based sampling produces texts that are out-of-distribution for the classifier and further gives rise to a high-dimensional search space, which can't be sufficiently explored when time or computation power is limited. Both of these challenges can be addressed by using segments as elementary building blocks for NLP interpretability. As illustration, we show that the simple choice of sentences greatly improves on both of these challenges. As a consequence, the resulting explainer attains much better fidelity on a benchmark classification task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

Integrating Prior Knowledge in Post-hoc Explanations

In the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), post-hoc interpretability methods aim at explaining to a user the predictions of a trained decision model. Integrating prior knowledge into such interpretability methods aims at improving the explanation understandability and allowing for personalised explanations adapted to each user. In this paper, we propose to define a cost function that explicitly integrates prior knowledge into the interpretability objectives: we present a general framework for the optimization problem of post-hoc interpretability methods, and show that user knowledge can thus be integrated to any method by adding a compatibility term in the cost function. We instantiate the proposed formalization in the case of counterfactual explanations and propose a new interpretability method called Knowledge Integration in Counterfactual Explanation (KICE) to optimize it. The paper performs an experimental study on several benchmark data sets to characterize the counterfactual instances generated by KICE, as compared to reference methods.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Towards the Right Kind of Fairness in AI

Fairness is a concept of justice. Various definitions exist, some of them conflicting with each other. In the absence of an uniformly accepted notion of fairness, choosing the right kind for a specific situation has always been a central issue in human history. When it comes to implementing sustainable fairness in artificial intelligence systems, this old question plays a key role once again: How to identify the most appropriate fairness metric for a particular application? The answer is often a matter of context, and the best choice depends on ethical standards and legal requirements. Since ethics guidelines on this topic are kept rather general for now, we aim to provide more hands-on guidance with this document. Therefore, we first structure the complex landscape of existing fairness metrics and explain the different options by example. Furthermore, we propose the "Fairness Compass", a tool which formalises the selection process and makes identifying the most appropriate fairness definition for a given system a simple, straightforward procedure. Because this process also allows to document the reasoning behind the respective decisions, we argue that this approach can help to build trust from the user through explaining and justifying the implemented fairness.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Fairness without the sensitive attribute via Causal Variational Autoencoder

In recent years, most fairness strategies in machine learning models focus on mitigating unwanted biases by assuming that the sensitive information is observed. However this is not always possible in practice. Due to privacy purposes and var-ious regulations such as RGPD in EU, many personal sensitive attributes are frequently not collected. We notice a lack of approaches for mitigating bias in such difficult settings, in particular for achieving classical fairness objectives such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. By leveraging recent developments for approximate inference, we propose an approach to fill this gap. Based on a causal graph, we rely on a new variational auto-encoding based framework named SRCVAE to infer a sensitive information proxy, that serve for bias mitigation in an adversarial fairness approach. We empirically demonstrate significant improvements over existing works in the field. We observe that the generated proxy's latent space recovers sensitive information and that our approach achieves a higher accuracy while obtaining the same level of fairness on two real datasets, as measured using com-mon fairness definitions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Understanding surrogate explanations: the interplay between complexity, fidelity and coverage

This paper analyses the fundamental ingredients behind surrogate explanations to provide a better understanding of their inner workings. We start our exposition by considering global surrogates, describing the trade-off between complexity of the surrogate and fidelity to the black-box being modelled. We show that transitioning from global to local - reducing coverage - allows for more favourable conditions on the Pareto frontier of fidelity-complexity of a surrogate. We discuss the interplay between complexity, fidelity and coverage, and consider how different user needs can lead to problem formulations where these are either constraints or penalties. We also present experiments that demonstrate how the local surrogate interpretability procedure can be made interactive and lead to better explanations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

How to choose an Explainability Method? Towards a Methodical Implementation of XAI in Practice

Explainability is becoming an important requirement for organizations that make use of automated decision-making due to regulatory initiatives and a shift in public awareness. Various and significantly different algorithmic methods to provide this explainability have been introduced in the field, but the existing literature in the machine learning community has paid little attention to the stakeholder whose needs are rather studied in the human-computer interface community. Therefore, organizations that want or need to provide this explainability are confronted with the selection of an appropriate method for their use case. In this paper, we argue there is a need for a methodology to bridge the gap between stakeholder needs and explanation methods. We present our ongoing work on creating this methodology to help data scientists in the process of providing explainability to stakeholders. In particular, our contributions include documents used to characterize XAI methods and user requirements (shown in Appendix), which our methodology builds upon.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

On the overlooked issue of defining explanation objectives for local-surrogate explainers

Local surrogate approaches for explaining machine learning model predictions have appealing properties, such as being model-agnostic and flexible in their modelling. Several methods exist that fit this description and share this goal. However, despite their shared overall procedure, they set out different objectives, extract different information from the black-box, and consequently produce diverse explanations, that are -- in general -- incomparable. In this work we review the similarities and differences amongst multiple methods, with a particular focus on what information they extract from the model, as this has large impact on the output: the explanation. We discuss the implications of the lack of agreement, and clarity, amongst the methods' objectives on the research and practice of explainability.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Explaining how your AI system is fair

To implement fair machine learning in a sustainable way, choosing the right fairness objective is key. Since fairness is a concept of justice which comes in various, sometimes conflicting definitions, this is not a trivial task though. The most appropriate fairness definition for an artificial intelligence (AI) system is a matter of ethical standards and legal requirements, and the right choice depends on the particular use case and its context. In this position paper, we propose to use a decision tree as means to explain and justify the implemented kind of fairness to the end users. Such a structure would first of all support AI practitioners in mapping ethical principles to fairness definitions for a concrete application and therefore make the selection a straightforward and transparent process. However, this approach would also help document the reasoning behind the decision making. Due to the general complexity of the topic of fairness in AI, we argue that specifying "fairness" for a given use case is the best way forward to maintain confidence in AI systems. In this case, this could be achieved by sharing the reasons and principles expressed during the decision making process with the broader audience.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Implementing Fair Regression In The Real World

Most fair regression algorithms mitigate bias towards sensitive sub populations and therefore improve fairness at group level. In this paper, we investigate the impact of such implementation of fair regression on the individual. More precisely, we assess the evolution of continuous predictions from an unconstrained to a fair algorithm by comparing results from baseline algorithms with fair regression algorithms for the same data points. Based on our findings, we propose a set of post-processing algorithms to improve the utility of the existing fair regression approaches.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

QUACKIE: A NLP Classification Task With Ground Truth Explanations

NLP Interpretability aims to increase trust in model predictions. This makes evaluating interpretability approaches a pressing issue. There are multiple datasets for evaluating NLP Interpretability, but their dependence on human provided ground truths raises questions about their unbiasedness. In this work, we take a different approach and formulate a specific classification task by diverting question-answering datasets. For this custom classification task, the interpretability ground-truth arises directly from the definition of the classification problem. We use this method to propose a benchmark and lay the groundwork for future research in NLP interpretability by evaluating a wide range of current state of the art methods.

cs.CL↗