Liberalism-oriented political philosophy reasons that all individuals should be treated equally independently of their protected characteristics. Related work in machine learning has translated the concept of \emph{equal treatment} into terms of \emph{equal outcome} and measured it as \emph{demographic parity} (also called \emph{statistical parity}). Our analysis reveals that the two concepts of equal outcome and equal treatment diverge; therefore, demographic parity does not faithfully represent the notion of \emph{equal treatment}. We propose a new formalization for equal treatment by (i) considering the influence of feature values on predictions, such as computed by Shapley values decomposing predictions across its features, (ii) defining distributions of explanations, and (iii) comparing explanation distributions between populations with different protected characteristics. We show the theoretical properties of our notion of equal treatment and devise a classifier two-sample test based on the AUC of an equal treatment inspector. We study our formalization of equal treatment on synthetic and natural data. We release \texttt{explanationspace}, an open-source Python package with methods and tutorials.

Explaining opaque Machine Learning (ML) models is an increasingly relevant problem. Current explanation in AI (XAI) methods suffer several shortcomings, among others an insufficient incorporation of background knowledge, and a lack of abstraction and interactivity with the user. We propose REASONX, an explanation method based on Constraint Logic Programming (CLP). REASONX can provide declarative, interactive explanations for decision trees, which can be the ML models under analysis or global/local surrogate models of any black-box model. Users can express background or common sense knowledge using linear constraints and MILP optimization over features of factual and contrastive instances, and interact with the answer constraints at different levels of abstraction through constraint projection. We present here the architecture of REASONX, which consists of a Python layer, closer to the user, and a CLP layer. REASONX's core execution engine is a Prolog meta-program with declarative semantics in terms of logic theories.

In this paper we present the initial screening order problem, a crucial step within candidate screening. It involves a human-like screener with an objective to find the first k suitable candidates rather than the best k suitable candidates in a candidate pool given an initial screening order. The initial screening order represents the way in which the human-like screener arranges the candidate pool prior to screening. The choice of initial screening order has considerable effects on the selected set of k candidates. We prove that under an unbalanced candidate pool (e.g., having more male than female candidates), the human-like screener can suffer from uneven efforts that hinder its decision-making over the protected, under-represented group relative to the non-protected, over-represented group. Other fairness results are proven under the human-like screener. This research is based on a collaboration with a large company to better understand its hiring process for potential automation. Our main contribution is the formalization of the initial screening order problem which, we argue, opens the path for future extensions of the current works on ranking algorithms, fairness, and automation for screening procedures.

In uses of pre-trained machine learning models, it is a known issue that the target population in which the model is being deployed may not have been reflected in the source population with which the model was trained. This can result in a biased model when deployed, leading to a reduction in model performance. One risk is that, as the population changes, certain demographic groups will be under-served or otherwise disadvantaged by the model, even as they become more represented in the target population. The field of domain adaptation proposes techniques for a situation where label data for the target population does not exist, but some information about the target distribution does exist. In this paper we contribute to the domain adaptation literature by introducing domain-adaptive decision trees (DADT). We focus on decision trees given their growing popularity due to their interpretability and performance relative to other more complex models. With DADT we aim to improve the accuracy of models trained in a source domain (or training data) that differs from the target domain (or test data). We propose an in-processing step that adjusts the information gain split criterion with outside information corresponding to the distribution of the target population. We demonstrate DADT on real data and find that it improves accuracy over a standard decision tree when testing in a shifted target population. We also study the change in fairness under demographic parity and equal opportunity. Results show an improvement in fairness with the use of DADT.

Many high-performing machine learning models are not interpretable. As they are increasingly used in decision scenarios that can critically affect individuals, it is necessary to develop tools to better understand their outputs. Popular explanation methods include contrastive explanations. However, they suffer several shortcomings, among others an insufficient incorporation of background knowledge, and a lack of interactivity. While (dialogue-like) interactivity is important to better communicate an explanation, background knowledge has the potential to significantly improve their quality, e.g., by adapting the explanation to the needs of the end-user. To close this gap, we present REASONX, an explanation tool based on Constraint Logic Programming (CLP). REASONX provides interactive contrastive explanations that can be augmented by background knowledge, and allows to operate under a setting of under-specified information, leading to increased flexibility in the provided explanations. REASONX computes factual and constrative decision rules, as well as closest constrative examples. It provides explanations for decision trees, which can be the ML models under analysis, or global/local surrogate models of any ML model. While the core part of REASONX is built on CLP, we also provide a program layer that allows to compute the explanations via Python, making the tool accessible to a wider audience. We illustrate the capability of REASONX on a synthetic data set, and on a a well-developed example in the credit domain. In both cases, we can show how REASONX can be flexibly used and tailored to the needs of the user.

Selective classification (or classification with a reject option) pairs a classifier with a selection function to determine whether or not a prediction should be accepted. This framework trades off coverage (probability of accepting a prediction) with predictive performance, typically measured by distributive loss functions. In many application scenarios, such as credit scoring, performance is instead measured by ranking metrics, such as the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC). We propose a model-agnostic approach to associate a selection function to a given probabilistic binary classifier. The approach is specifically targeted at optimizing the AUC. We provide both theoretical justifications and a novel algorithm, called AUCROSS, to achieve such a goal. Experiments show that our method succeeds in trading-off coverage for AUC, improving over existing selective classification methods targeted at optimizing accuracy.

Protected attributes are often presented as categorical features that need to be encoded before feeding them into a machine learning algorithm. Encoding these attributes is paramount as they determine the way the algorithm will learn from the data. Categorical feature encoding has a direct impact on the model performance and fairness. In this work, we compare the accuracy and fairness implications of the two most well-known encoders: one-hot encoding and target encoding. We distinguish between two types of induced bias that can arise while using these encodings and can lead to unfair models. The first type, irreducible bias, is due to direct group category discrimination and a second type, reducible bias, is due to large variance in less statistically represented groups. We take a deeper look into how regularization methods for target encoding can improve the induced bias while encoding categorical features. Furthermore, we tackle the problem of intersectional fairness that arises when mixing two protected categorical features leading to higher cardinality. This practice is a powerful feature engineering technique used for boosting model performance. We study its implications on fairness as it can increase both types of induced bias

Interpretable classification models are built with the purpose of providing a comprehensible description of the decision logic to an external oversight agent. When considered in isolation, a decision tree, a set of classification rules, or a linear model, are widely recognized as human-interpretable. However, such models are generated as part of a larger analytical process, which, in particular, comprises data collection and filtering. Selection bias in data collection or in data pre-processing may affect the model learned. Although model induction algorithms are designed to learn to generalize, they pursue optimization of predictive accuracy. It remains unclear how interpretability is instead impacted. We conduct an experimental analysis to investigate whether interpretable models are able to cope with data selection bias as far as interpretability is concerned.

Black box systems for automated decision making, often based on machine learning over (big) data, map a user's features into a class or a score without exposing the reasons why. This is problematic not only for lack of transparency, but also for possible biases hidden in the algorithms, due to human prejudices and collection artifacts hidden in the training data, which may lead to unfair or wrong decisions. We introduce the local-to-global framework for black box explanation, a novel approach with promising early results, which paves the road for a wide spectrum of future developments along three dimensions: (i) the language for expressing explanations in terms of highly expressive logic-based rules, with a statistical and causal interpretation; (ii) the inference of local explanations aimed at revealing the logic of the decision adopted for a specific instance by querying and auditing the black box in the vicinity of the target instance; (iii), the bottom-up generalization of the many local explanations into simple global ones, with algorithms that optimize the quality and comprehensibility of explanations.

The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users. The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. %Therefore, we need explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision. In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e., explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instance's features that lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the accuracy in mimicking the black box.