Computers are increasingly used to make decisions that have significant impact in people's lives. Often, these predictions can affect different population subgroups disproportionately. As a result, the issue of fairness has received much recent interest, and a number of fairness-enhanced classifiers and predictors have appeared in the literature. This paper seeks to study the following questions: how do these different techniques fundamentally compare to one another, and what accounts for the differences? Specifically, we seek to bring attention to many under-appreciated aspects of such fairness-enhancing interventions. Concretely, we present the results of an open benchmark we have developed that lets us compare a number of different algorithms under a variety of fairness measures, and a large number of existing datasets. We find that although different algorithms tend to prefer specific formulations of fairness preservations, many of these measures strongly correlate with one another. In addition, we find that fairness-preserving algorithms tend to be sensitive to fluctuations in dataset composition (simulated in our benchmark by varying training-test splits), indicating that fairness interventions might be more brittle than previously thought.

Interpretable machine learning models have received increasing interest in recent years, especially in domains where humans are involved in the decision-making process. However, the possible loss of the task performance for gaining interpretability is often inevitable. This performance downgrade puts practitioners in a dilemma of choosing between a top-performing black-box model with no explanations and an interpretable model with unsatisfying task performance. In this work, we propose a novel framework for building a Hybrid Decision Model that integrates an interpretable model with any black-box model to introduce explanations in the decision making process while preserving or possibly improving the predictive accuracy. We propose a novel metric, explainability, to measure the percentage of data that are sent to the interpretable model for decision. We also design a principled objective function that considers predictive accuracy, model interpretability, and data explainability. Under this framework, we develop Collaborative Black-box and RUle Set Hybrid (CoBRUSH) model that combines logic rules and any black-box model into a joint decision model. An input instance is first sent to the rules for decision. If a rule is satisfied, a decision will be directly generated. Otherwise, the black-box model is activated to decide on the instance. To train a hybrid model, we design an efficient search algorithm that exploits theoretically grounded strategies to reduce computation. Experiments show that CoBRUSH models are able to achieve same or better accuracy than their black-box collaborator working alone while gaining explainability. They also have smaller model complexity than interpretable baselines.

We propose a novel class of time-varying nonparanormal graphical models, which allows us to model high dimensional heavy-tailed systems and the evolution of their latent network structures. Under this model, we develop statistical tests for presence of edges both locally at a fixed index value and globally over a range of values. The tests are developed for a high-dimensional regime, are robust to model selection mistakes and do not require commonly assumed minimum signal strength. The testing procedures are based on a high dimensional, debiasing-free moment estimator, which uses a novel kernel smoothed Kendall's tau correlation matrix as an input statistic. The estimator consistently estimates the latent inverse Pearson correlation matrix uniformly in both the index variable and kernel bandwidth. Its rate of convergence is shown to be minimax optimal. Our method is supported by thorough numerical simulations and an application to a neural imaging data set.

Ensembles have rapidly become one of the hottest and most popular methods in applied machine learning. Virtually every winning Kaggle solution features them, and many data science pipelines have ensembles in them. Put simply, ensembles combine predictions from different models to generate a final prediction, and the more models we include the better it performs. Better still, because ensembles combine baseline predictions, they perform at least as well as the best baseline model. Ensembles give us a performance boost almost for free!

You've created a model to predict which sales leads are likely to turn into convert into paying customers. The model is a true work of algorithmic beauty -- its your Mona Lisa, but better since it actually does something useful. You have tuned the parameters and cross-validated the results, which means the only thing left to do is present your work to the company's executives. "No problem" you think to yourself, you'll just talk them through a Confusion Matrix and ROC curve and wait for them to lavish you in riches and praise. Anyone who has tried to walk business stakeholders through predictive model performance knows that you are more likely to get strained expressions and blank stares than a standing ovation.

Color to a set of bars within the histogram was assigned based on the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guideline driven cutoff values for high and low creatinine. Model predictions were performed on the remaining 30% of the data (n 662), and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated. Color to a set of bars within the histogram was assigned based on the KDOQI guideline driven cutoff value for nephrotic-range proteinuria (g/d). Model predictions were performed on the remaining 30% of the data (n 648), and an ROC curve was generated.

Though there is a growing body of literature on fairness for supervised learning, the problem of incorporating fairness into unsupervised learning has been less well-studied. This paper studies fairness in the context of principal component analysis (PCA). We first present a definition of fairness for dimensionality reduction, and our definition can be interpreted as saying that a reduction is fair if information about a protected class (e.g., race or gender) cannot be inferred from the dimensionality-reduced data points. Next, we develop convex optimization formulations that can improve the fairness (with respect to our definition) of PCA and kernel PCA. These formulations are semidefinite programs (SDP's), and we demonstrate the effectiveness of our formulations using several datasets. We conclude by showing how our approach can be used to perform a fair (with respect to age) clustering of health data that may be used to set health insurance rates.

The real-time crash likelihood prediction has been an important research topic. Various classifiers, such as support vector machine (SVM) and tree-based boosting algorithms, have been proposed in traffic safety studies. However, few research focuses on the missing data imputation in real-time crash likelihood prediction, although missing values are commonly observed due to breakdown of sensors or external interference. Besides, classifying imbalanced data is also a difficult problem in real-time crash likelihood prediction, since it is hard to distinguish crash-prone cases from non-crash cases which compose the majority of the observed samples. In this paper, principal component analysis (PCA) based approaches, including LS-PCA, PPCA, and VBPCA, are employed for imputing missing values, while two kinds of solutions are developed to solve the problem in imbalanced data. The results show that PPCA and VBPCA not only outperform LS-PCA and other imputation methods (including mean imputation and k-means clustering imputation), in terms of the root mean square error (RMSE), but also help the classifiers achieve better predictive performance. The two solutions, i.e., cost-sensitive learning and synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE), help improve the sensitivity by adjusting the classifiers to Corresponding author Email address: chenxiqun@zju.edu.cn Keywords: Real-time crash likelihood prediction, PCA-based missing data imputation, cost-sensitive learning, SMOTE, support vector machine, AdaBoost 1. Introduction Prediction of traffic crash has been a major research topic in transportation safety studies. Crashes, especially on urban expressways, can trigger heavy traffic congestions, impose huge external costs, and reduce the level of service of transportation infrastructures. Therefore, the accurate and reliable prediction of crash risks is critical to the success of proactive safety management strategies on urban expressways. There have been fruitful studies in the domain of the real-time crash likelihood estimation (Abdel-Aty and Pemmanaboina, 2006; Abdel-Aty et al., 2007, 2008; Ahmed and Abdel-Aty, 2012). It has been reported that crash occurrence was affected by four major factors: real-time traffic state, drivers' behavior, environment factors, and road geometry (Ahmed and Abdel-Aty, 2013b).

Imagine this scenario: In a clinical trial investigating the toxicity of a new chemotherapy drug to treat breast cancer, some patients drop out of the trial before completion for various reasons, hence we do not have the data for final outcome on the dropped out patients. What if the patients who drop out of the trial before completion are the ones who experienced toxicity and are unwilling to continue the treatment, this reason however is not recorded in the database and the patients are marked as "lost to followup". If the investigators were to analyze the data using conventional methods where loss to followup is ignored and not properly accounted for, they will estimate the toxicity to be far less than what it really is. These results can lead to adapting a drug, that is otherwise unsafe. Similarly if patients who are feeling better dropout of the trial before completion, the estimates of toxicity would be far greater than the real value, leading to rejection of a potential lifesaver drug.

This paper considers the problem of choosing a good classifier. For each problem there exist an optimal classifier, but none are optimal, regarding the error rate, in all cases. Because there exists a large number of classifiers, a user would rather prefer an all-purpose classifier that is easy to adjust, in the hope that it will do almost as good as the optimal. In this paper we establish a list of criteria that a good generalist classifier should satisfy . We first discuss data analytic, these criteria are presented. Six among the most popular classifiers are selected and scored according to these criteria. Tables allow to easily appreciate the relative values of each. In the end, random forests turn out to be the best classifiers.