Categorical encoders transform categorical features into numerical representations that are indispensable for a wide range of machine learning models. Existing encoder benchmark studies lack generalizability because of their limited choice of 1. encoders, 2. experimental factors, and 3. datasets. Additionally, inconsistencies arise from the adoption of varying aggregation strategies. This paper is the most comprehensive benchmark of categorical encoders to date, including an extensive evaluation of 32 configurations of encoders from diverse families, with 48 combinations of experimental factors, and on 50 datasets. The study shows the profound influence of dataset selection, experimental factors, and aggregation strategies on the benchmark's conclusions -- aspects disregarded in previous encoder benchmarks.

A large and rapidly expanding literature demonstrates that machine learning (ML) methods substantially improve out-of-sample asset return prediction relative to conventional linear benchmarks, and that these statistical gains often translate into economically meaningful portfolio performance. Seminal contributions such as Gu et al. (2020) document large Sharpe ratio improvements from nonlinear learners in U.S. equities, while subsequent work extends these findings to stochastic discount factor estimation (Chen et al. 2024), international equity markets (Leippold et al. 2022), and bond return forecasting (Kelly et al. 2019, Bianchi et al. 2020). Collectively, this literature establishes ML as a powerful tool for extracting conditional expected returns in environments characterized by noisy signals, nonlinear interactions, and pervasive multicollinearity.

Machine learning (ML) models are only as good as the data they are trained on. But recent studies have found datasets widely used to train and evaluate ML models, e.g., to have pervasive labeling errors. Erroneous labels on the train set hurt ML models' ability to generalize, and they impact evaluation and model selection using the test set. Consequently, learning in the presence of labeling errors is an active area of research, yet this field lacks a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate these methods. Most of these methods are evaluated on a few computer vision datasets with significant variance in the experimental protocols. With such a large pool of methods and inconsistent evaluation, it is also unclear how ML practitioners can choose the right models to assess label quality in their data. To this end, we propose a benchmarking environment to rigorously evaluate methods that enable machine learning in the presence of label noise. We also introduce a design space to delineate concrete design choices of label error detection models. We hope that our proposed design space and benchmark enable practitioners to choose the right tools to improve their label quality and that our benchmark enables objective and rigorous evaluation of machine learning tools facing mislabeled data.

The ocean is a crucial component of the Earth's system. It profoundly influences human activities and plays a critical role in climate regulation. Our understanding has significantly improved over the last decades with the advent of satellite remote sensing data, allowing us to capture essential sea surface quantities over the globe, e.g., sea surface height (SSH). Despite their ever-increasing abundance, ocean satellite data presents challenges for information extraction due to their sparsity and irregular sampling, signal complexity, and noise. Machine learning (ML) techniques have demonstrated their capabilities in dealing with large-scale, complex signals.

Feature attribution methods explain black-box machine learning (ML) models by assigning importance scores to input features. These methods can be computationally expensive for large ML models. To address this challenge, there have been increasing efforts to develop amortized explainers, where a ML model is trained to efficiently approximate computationally expensive feature attribution scores. Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce misleading explanations. In this paper, we propose selective explanations to (i) detect when amortized explainers generate inaccurate explanations and (ii) improve the approximation of the explanation using a technique we call explanations with initial guess. Selective explanations allow practitioners to specify the fraction of samples that receive explanations with initial guess, offering a principled way to bridge the gap between amortized explainers (one inference) and more computationally costly approximations (multiple inferences). Our experiments on various models and datasets demonstrate that feature attributions via selective explanations strike a favorable balance between explanation quality and computational efficiency.

Understanding and interpreting how machine learning (ML) models make decisions have been a big challenge. While recent research has proposed various technical approaches to provide some clues as to how an ML model makes individual predictions, they cannot provide users with an ability to inspect a model as a complete entity. In this work, we propose a novel technical approach that augments a Bayesian non-parametric regression mixture model with multiple elastic nets. Using the enhanced mixture model, we can extract generalizable insights for a target model through a global approximation. To demonstrate the utility of our approach, we evaluate it on different ML models in the context of image recognition. The empirical results indicate that our proposed approach not only outperforms the state-of-the-art techniques in explaining individual decisions but also provides users with an ability to discover the vulnerabilities of the target ML models.

Extensive efforts have been made to understand and improve the fairness of machine learning models based on observational metrics, especially in high-stakes domains such as medical insurance, education, and hiring decisions. However, there is a lack of certified fairness considering the end-to-end performance of an ML model. In this paper, we first formulate the certified fairness of an ML model trained on a given data distribution as an optimization problem based on the model performance loss bound on a fairness constrained distribution, which is within bounded distributional distance with the training distribution. We then propose a general fairness certification framework and instantiate it for both sensitive shifting and general shifting scenarios. In particular, we propose to solve the optimization problem by decomposing the original data distribution into analytical subpopulations and proving the convexity of the subproblems to solve them. We evaluate our certified fairness on six real-world datasets and show that our certification is tight in the sensitive shifting scenario and provides non-trivial certification under general shifting. Our framework is flexible to integrate additional non-skewness constraints and we show that it provides even tighter certification under different real-world scenarios. We also compare our certified fairness bound with adapted existing distributional robustness bounds on Gaussian data and demonstrate that our method is significantly tighter.

Extreme multi-label classification (XMC) is a popular framework for solving many real-world problems that require accurate prediction from a very large number of potential output choices. A popular approach for dealing with the large label space is to arrange the labels into a shallow tree-based index and then learn an ML model to efficiently search this index via beam search. Existing methods initialize the tree index by clustering the label space into a few mutually exclusive clusters based on pre-defined features and keep it fixed throughout the training procedure. This approach results in a sub-optimal indexing structure over the label space and limits the search performance to the quality of choices made during the initialization of the index. In this paper, we propose a novel method ELIAS which relaxes the tree-based index to a specialized weighted graph-based index which is learned end-to-end with the final task objective. More specifically, ELIAS models the discrete cluster-to-label assignments in the existing tree-based index as soft learnable parameters that are learned jointly with the rest of the ML model. ELIAS achieves state-of-the-art performance on several large-scale extreme classification benchmarks with millions of labels. In particular, ELIAS can be up to 2.5% better at precision@$1$ and up to 4% better at recall@$100$ than existing XMC methods.

Several queries and scores have recently been proposed to explain individual predictions over ML models. Examples include queries based on "anchors", which are parts of an instance that are sufficient to justify its classification, and "feature-perturbation" scores such as SHAP. Given the need for flexible, reliable, and easy-to-apply interpretability methods for ML models, we foresee the need for developing declarative languages to naturally specify different explainability queries. We do this in a principled way by rooting such a language in a logic called FOIL, which allows for expressing many simple but important explainability queries, and might serve as a core for more expressive interpretability languages. We study the computational complexity of FOIL queries over two classes of ML models often deemed to be easily interpretable: decision trees and more general decision diagrams. Since the number of possible inputs for an ML model is exponential in its dimension, tractability of the FOIL evaluation problem is delicate but can be achieved by either restricting the structure of the models, or the fragment of FOIL being evaluated. We also present a prototype implementation of FOIL wrapped in a high-level declarative language and perform experiments showing that such a language can be used in practice.