Researchers have proposed many methods for fair and robust machine learning, but comprehensive empirical evaluation of their subgroup robustness is lacking. In this work, we address this gap in the context of tabular data, where sensitive subgroups are clearly-defined, real-world fairness problems abound, and prior works often do not compare to state-of-the-art tree-based models as baselines. We conduct an empirical comparison of several previously-proposed methods for fair and robust learning alongside state-of-the-art tree-based methods and other baselines. Via experiments with more than $340{,}000$ model configurations on eight datasets, we show that tree-based methods have strong subgroup robustness, even when compared to robustness-and fairness-enhancing methods. Moreover, the best tree-based models tend to show good performance over a range of metrics, while robust or group-fair models can show brittleness, with significant performance differences across different metrics for a fixed model. We also demonstrate that tree-based models show less sensitivity to hyperparameter configurations, and are less costly to train. Our work suggests that tree-based ensemble models make an effective baseline for tabular data, and are a sensible default when subgroup robustness is desired.

Researchers have proposed many methods for fair and robust machine learning, but comprehensive empirical evaluation of their subgroup robustness is lacking. In this work, we address this gap in the context of tabular data, where sensitive subgroups are clearly-defined, real-world fairness problems abound, and prior works often do not compare to state-of-the-art tree-based models as baselines.

Machine learning models can often fail on subgroups that are underrepresentedduring training. While dataset balancing can improve performance onunderperforming groups, it requires access to training group annotations and canend up removing large portions of the dataset. In this paper, we introduceData Debiasing with Datamodels (D3M), a debiasing approachwhich isolates and removes specific training examples that drive the model'sfailures on minority groups. Our approach enables us to efficiently traindebiased classifiers while removing only a small number of examples, and doesnot require training group annotations or additional hyperparameter tuning.

Researchers have proposed many methods for fair and robust machine learning, but comprehensive empirical evaluation of their subgroup robustness is lacking. In this work, we address this gap in the context of tabular data, where sensitive subgroups are clearly-defined, real-world fairness problems abound, and prior works often do not compare to state-of-the-art tree-based models as baselines. We conduct an empirical comparison of several previously-proposed methods for fair and robust learning alongside state-of-the-art tree-based methods and other baselines. Via experiments with more than 340{,}000 model configurations on eight datasets, we show that tree-based methods have strong subgroup robustness, even when compared to robustness- and fairness-enhancing methods. Moreover, the best tree-based models tend to show good performance over a range of metrics, while robust or group-fair models can show brittleness, with significant performance differences across different metrics for a fixed model.

To reduce the inference cost of large language models, model compression is increasingly used to create smaller scalable models. However, little is known about their robustness to minority subgroups defined by the labels and attributes of a dataset. In this paper, we investigate the effects of 18 different compression methods and settings on the subgroup robustness of BERT language models. We show that worst-group performance does not depend on model size alone, but also on the compression method used. Additionally, we find that model compression does not always worsen the performance on minority subgroups. Altogether, our analysis serves to further research into the subgroup robustness of model compression.

Researchers have proposed many methods for fair and robust machine learning, but comprehensive empirical evaluation of their subgroup robustness is lacking. In this work, we address this gap in the context of tabular data, where sensitive subgroups are clearly-defined, real-world fairness problems abound, and prior works often do not compare to state-of-the-art tree-based models as baselines. We conduct an empirical comparison of several previously-proposed methods for fair and robust learning alongside state-of-the-art tree-based methods and other baselines. Via experiments with more than $340{,}000$ model configurations on eight datasets, we show that tree-based methods have strong subgroup robustness, even when compared to robustness- and fairness-enhancing methods. Moreover, the best tree-based models tend to show good performance over a range of metrics, while robust or group-fair models can show brittleness, with significant performance differences across different metrics for a fixed model. We also demonstrate that tree-based models show less sensitivity to hyperparameter configurations, and are less costly to train. Our work suggests that tree-based ensemble models make an effective baseline for tabular data, and are a sensible default when subgroup robustness is desired. For associated code and detailed results, see https://github.com/jpgard/subgroup-robustness-grows-on-trees .