Answering these questions will help guide decision-making on both the data and model selection when factoring fairness into account. With the proliferation of algorithmic decision-making, increased The contributions that this paper make are: (i) provide experimental scrutiny has been placed on these systems. This paper explores results over different metrics of fairness across different models the relationship between the quality of the training data and the and datasets; (ii) answer questions related to the impact of data overall fairness of the models trained with such data in the context quality on fairness (e.g., Does label accuracy increase fairness?); of supervised classification. We measure key fairness metrics across and (iii) provide a starting point and datasets for future research a range of algorithms over multiple image classification datasets into the impact of data quality on supervised classification fairness.

Despite the popularity of feature importance (FI) measures in interpretable machine learning, the statistical adequacy of these methods is rarely discussed. From a statistical perspective, a major distinction is between analyzing a variable's importance before and after adjusting for covariates - i.e., between $\textit{marginal}$ and $\textit{conditional}$ measures. Our work draws attention to this rarely acknowledged, yet crucial distinction and showcases its implications. Further, we reveal that for testing conditional FI, only few methods are available and practitioners have hitherto been severely restricted in method application due to mismatching data requirements. Most real-world data exhibits complex feature dependencies and incorporates both continuous and categorical data (mixed data). Both properties are oftentimes neglected by conditional FI measures. To fill this gap, we propose to combine the conditional predictive impact (CPI) framework with sequential knockoff sampling. The CPI enables conditional FI measurement that controls for any feature dependencies by sampling valid knockoffs - hence, generating synthetic data with similar statistical properties - for the data to be analyzed. Sequential knockoffs were deliberately designed to handle mixed data and thus allow us to extend the CPI approach to such datasets. We demonstrate through numerous simulations and a real-world example that our proposed workflow controls type I error, achieves high power and is in line with results given by other conditional FI measures, whereas marginal FI metrics result in misleading interpretations. Our findings highlight the necessity of developing statistically adequate, specialized methods for mixed data.

The focus is on critical problems in NLP related to linguistic diversity and variation across the African continent, specifically with regards to African local dialects and Arabic dialects that have received little attention. We evaluated our various approaches, demonstrating their effectiveness while highlighting the potential impact of the proposed approach on businesses seeking to improve customer experience and product development in African local dialects. The idea of using the model as a teaching tool for product-based instruction is interesting, as it could potentially stimulate interest in learners and trigger techno entrepreneurship. Overall, our modified approach offers a promising analysis of the challenges of dealing with African local dialects. Particularly Arabic dialects, which could have a significant impact on businesses seeking to improve customer experience and product development.

Neural networks (NNs) often assign high confidence to their predictions, even for points far out-of-distribution, making uncertainty quantification (UQ) a challenge. When they are employed to model interatomic potentials in materials systems, this problem leads to unphysical structures that disrupt simulations, or to biased statistics and dynamics that do not reflect the true physics. Differentiable UQ techniques can find new informative data and drive active learning loops for robust potentials. However, a variety of UQ techniques, including newly developed ones, exist for atomistic simulations and there are no clear guidelines for which are most effective or suitable for a given case. In this work, we examine multiple UQ schemes for improving the robustness of NN interatomic potentials (NNIPs) through active learning. In particular, we compare incumbent ensemble-based methods against strategies that use single, deterministic NNs: mean-variance estimation, deep evidential regression, and Gaussian mixture models. We explore three datasets ranging from in-domain interpolative learning to more extrapolative out-of-domain generalization challenges: rMD17, ammonia inversion, and bulk silica glass. Performance is measured across multiple metrics relating model error to uncertainty. Our experiments show that none of the methods consistently outperformed each other across the various metrics. Ensembling remained better at generalization and for NNIP robustness; MVE only proved effective for in-domain interpolation, while GMM was better out-of-domain; and evidential regression, despite its promise, was not the preferable alternative in any of the cases. More broadly, cost-effective, single deterministic models cannot yet consistently match or outperform ensembling for uncertainty quantification in NNIPs.

While advanced classifiers have been increasingly used in real-world safety-critical applications, how to properly evaluate the black-box models given specific human values remains a concern in the community. Such human values include punishing error cases of different severity in varying degrees and making compromises in general performance to reduce specific dangerous cases. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation measure named Meta Pattern Concern Score based on the abstract representation of probabilistic prediction and the adjustable threshold for the concession in prediction confidence, to introduce the human values into multi-classifiers. Technically, we learn from the advantages and disadvantages of two kinds of common metrics, namely the confusion matrix-based evaluation measures and the loss values, so that our measure is effective as them even under general tasks, and the cross entropy loss becomes a special case of our measure in the limit. Besides, our measure can also be used to refine the model training by dynamically adjusting the learning rate. The experiments on four kinds of models and six datasets confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of our measure. And a case study shows it can not only find the ideal model reducing 0.53% of dangerous cases by only sacrificing 0.04% of training accuracy, but also refine the learning rate to train a new model averagely outperforming the original one with a 1.62% lower value of itself and 0.36% fewer number of dangerous cases.

Modern machine learning increasingly supports paradigms that are multi-institutional (using data from multiple institutions during training) or cross-institutional (using models from multiple institutions for inference), but the empirical effects of these paradigms are not well understood. This study investigates cross-institutional learning via an empirical case study in higher education. We propose a framework and metrics for assessing the utility and fairness of student dropout prediction models that are transferred across institutions. We examine the feasibility of cross-institutional transfer under real-world data- and model-sharing constraints, quantifying model biases for intersectional student identities, characterizing potential disparate impact due to these biases, and investigating the impact of various cross-institutional ensembling approaches on fairness and overall model performance. We perform this analysis on data representing over 200,000 enrolled students annually from four universities without sharing training data between institutions. We find that a simple zero-shot cross-institutional transfer procedure can achieve similar performance to locally-trained models for all institutions in our study, without sacrificing model fairness. We also find that stacked ensembling provides no additional benefits to overall performance or fairness compared to either a local model or the zero-shot transfer procedure we tested. We find no evidence of a fairness-accuracy tradeoff across dozens of models and transfer schemes evaluated. Our auditing procedure also highlights the importance of intersectional fairness analysis, revealing performance disparities at the intersection of sensitive identity groups that are concealed under one-dimensional analysis.

In this study we evaluate 32 unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms on 52 real-world multivariate tabular datasets, performing the largest comparison of unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms to date. On this collection of datasets, the $k$-thNN (distance to the $k$-nearest neighbor) algorithm significantly outperforms the most other algorithms. Visualizing and then clustering the relative performance of the considered algorithms on all datasets, we identify two clear clusters: one with ``local'' datasets, and another with ``global'' datasets. ``Local'' anomalies occupy a region with low density when compared to nearby samples, while ``global'' occupy an overall low density region in the feature space. On the local datasets the $k$NN ($k$-nearest neighbor) algorithm comes out on top. On the global datasets, the EIF (extended isolation forest) algorithm performs the best. Also taking into consideration the algorithms' computational complexity, a toolbox with these three unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms suffices for finding anomalies in this representative collection of multivariate datasets. By providing access to code and datasets, our study can be easily reproduced and extended with more algorithms and/or datasets.

The separation between training and deployment of machine learning models implies that not all scenarios encountered in deployment can be anticipated during training, and therefore relying solely on advancements in training has its limits. Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is an important area that stress-tests a model's ability to handle unseen situations: Do models know when they don't know? Existing OOD detection methods either incur extra training steps, additional data or make nontrivial modifications to the trained network. In contrast, in this work, we propose an extremely simple, post-hoc, on-the-fly activation shaping method, ASH, where a large portion (e.g. The shaping is applied at inference time, and does not require any statistics calculated from training data. Experiments show that such a simple treatment enhances in-distribution and out-ofdistribution distinction so as to allow state-of-the-art OOD detection on ImageNet, and does not noticeably deteriorate the in-distribution accuracy. Video, animation and code can be found at: https://andrijazz.github.io/ash. Machine learning works by iteration. We develop better and better training techniques (validated in a closed-loop validation setting) and once a model is trained, we observe problems, shortcomings, pitfalls and misalignment in deployment, which drive us to go back to modify or refine the training process. However, as we enter an era of large models, recent progress is driven heavily by the advancement of scaling, seen on all fronts including the size of models, data, physical hardware as well as team of researchers and engineers (Kaplan et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Ramesh et al., 2022; Saharia et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). As a result, it is getting more difficult to conduct multiple iterations of the usual train-deployment loop; for that reason post hoc methods that improve model capability without the need to modify training are greatly preferred. Methods like zero-shot learning (Radford et al., 2021), plug-and-play controlling (Dathathri et al., 2020), as well as feature post processing (Guo et al., 2017) leverage post-hoc operations to make general and flexible pretrained models more adaptive to downstream applications. The out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization failure is one of such pitfalls often observed in deployment. The central question around OOD detection is "Do models know when they don't know?"

In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds: The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. Balancing these two perspectives is a question of values. However, these values are often hidden in the technicalities of the implementation of the decision-making system. In this paper, we propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible. We focus on a setting in which we want to find decision rules that balance the perspective of the decision maker and of the decision subjects. We provide an approach to formalize both perspectives, i.e., to assess the utility of the decision maker and the fairness towards the decision subjects. In both cases, the idea is to elicit values from decision makers and decision subjects that are then turned into something measurable. For the fairness evaluation, we build on well-known theories of distributive justice and on the algorithmic literature to ask what a fair distribution of utility (or welfare) looks like. This allows us to derive a fairness score that we then compare to the decision maker's utility. As we focus on a setting in which we are given a trained model and have to choose a decision rule, we use the concept of Pareto efficiency to compare decision rules. Our proposed framework can both guide the implementation of a decision-making system and help with audits, as it allows us to resurface the values implemented in a decision-making system.

Accurate bot detection is necessary for the safety and integrity of online platforms. It is also crucial for research on the influence of bots in elections, the spread of misinformation, and financial market manipulation. Platforms deploy infrastructure to flag or remove automated accounts, but their tools and data are not publicly available. Thus, the public must rely on third-party bot detection. These tools employ machine learning and often achieve near perfect performance for classification on existing datasets, suggesting bot detection is accurate, reliable and fit for use in downstream applications. We provide evidence that this is not the case and show that high performance is attributable to limitations in dataset collection and labeling rather than sophistication of the tools. Specifically, we show that simple decision rules -- shallow decision trees trained on a small number of features -- achieve near-state-of-the-art performance on most available datasets and that bot detection datasets, even when combined together, do not generalize well to out-of-sample datasets. Our findings reveal that predictions are highly dependent on each dataset's collection and labeling procedures rather than fundamental differences between bots and humans. These results have important implications for both transparency in sampling and labeling procedures and potential biases in research using existing bot detection tools for pre-processing.