Traditional approaches to learning fair machine learning models often require rebuilding models from scratch, generally without accounting for potentially existing previous models. In a context where models need to be retrained frequently, this can lead to inconsistent model updates, as well as redundant and costly validation testing. To address this limitation, we introduce the notion of controlled model debiasing, a novel supervised learning task relying on two desiderata: that the differences between new fair model and the existing one should be (i) interpretable and (ii) minimal. After providing theoretical guarantees to this new problem, we introduce a novel algorithm for algorithmic fairness, COMMOD, that is both model-agnostic and does not require the sensitive attribute at test time. In addition, our algorithm is explicitly designed to enforce (i) minimal and (ii) interpretable changes between biased and debiased predictions--a property that, while highly desirable in high-stakes applications, is rarely prioritized as an explicit objective in fairness literature. Our approach combines a concept-based architecture and adversarial learning and we demonstrate through empirical results that it achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art debiasing methods while performing minimal and interpretable prediction changes. 1 Introduction The increasing adoption of machine learning models in high-stakes domains--such as criminal justice (Klein-berg et al., 2016) and credit lending (Bruckner, 2018)--has raised significant concerns about the potential biases that these models may reproduce and amplify, particularly against historically marginalized groups. Recent public discourse, along with regulatory developments such as the European AI Act (2024/1689), has further underscored the need for adapting AI systems to ensure fairness and trustworthiness (Bringas Col-menarejo et al., 2022). Consequently, many of the machine learning models deployed by organizations are, or may soon be, subject to these emerging regulatory requirements. Yet, such organizations frequently invest significant resources (e.g. The field of algorithmic fairness has experienced rapid growth in recent years, with numerous bias mitigation strategies proposed (Romei & Ruggieri, 2014; Mehrabi et al., 2021). These approaches can be broadly categorized into three types: pre-processing (e.g.,(Belrose et al., 2024)), in-processing (e.g.,(Zhang et al., 2018)), and post-processing(e.g., (Kamiran et al., 2010)), based on the stage of the machine learning pipeline at which fairness is enforced. While the two former categories do not account at all for any pre-existing biased model being available for the task, post-processing approaches aim to impose fairness by directly modifying the predictions of a biased classifier.

This paper introduces a novel agent-based approach for enhancing existing portfolio strategies using Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO). Rather than focusing solely on traditional portfolio construction, our approach aims to improve an already high-performing strategy through dynamic rebalancing driven by PPO and Oracle agents. Our target is to enhance the traditional 60/40 benchmark (60% stocks, 40% bonds) by employing the Regret-based Sharpe reward function. To address the impact of transaction fee frictions and prevent signal loss, we develop a transaction cost scheduler. We introduce a future-looking reward function and employ synthetic data training through a circular block bootstrap method to facilitate the learning of generalizable allocation strategies. We focus on two key evaluation measures: return and maximum drawdown. Given the high stochasticity of financial markets, we train 20 independent agents each period and evaluate their average performance against the benchmark. Our method not only enhances the performance of the existing portfolio strategy through strategic rebalancing but also demonstrates strong results compared to other baselines.

As Machine Learning (ML) models achieve unprecedented levels of performance, the XAI domain aims at making these models understandable by presenting end-users with intelligible explanations. Yet, some existing XAI approaches fail to meet expectations: several issues have been reported in the literature, generally pointing out either technical limitations or misinterpretations by users. In this paper, we argue that the resulting harms arise from a complex overlap of multiple failures in XAI, which existing ad-hoc studies fail to capture. This work therefore advocates for a holistic perspective, presenting a systematic investigation of limitations of current XAI methods and their impact on the interpretation of explanations. By distinguishing between system-specific and user-specific failures, we propose a typological framework that helps revealing the nuanced complexities of explanation failures. Leveraging this typology, we also discuss some research directions to help AI practitioners better understand the limitations of XAI systems and enhance the quality of ML explanations.

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.

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.

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.

Most works on the fairness of machine learning systems focus on the blind optimization of common fairness metrics, such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study of several bias mitigation approaches to investigate their behaviors at a fine grain, the prediction level. Our objective is to characterize the differences between fair models obtained with different approaches. With comparable performances in fairness and accuracy, are the different bias mitigation approaches impacting a similar number of individuals? Do they mitigate bias in a similar way? Do they affect the same individuals when debiasing a model? Our findings show that bias mitigation approaches differ a lot in their strategies, both in the number of impacted individuals and the populations targeted. More surprisingly, we show these results even apply for several runs of the same mitigation approach. These findings raise questions about the limitations of the current group fairness metrics, as well as the arbitrariness, hence unfairness, of the whole debiasing process.

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.

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.

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. Keywords: Explainable Artificial Intelligence · Interpretable Machine Learning · Stakeholder needs · Methodology.