Natasa Krco

Vinitra Swamy, Bahar Radmehr, Natasa Krco et al.

Neural networks are ubiquitous in applied machine learning for education. Their pervasive success in predictive performance comes alongside a severe weakness, the lack of explainability of their decisions, especially relevant in human-centric fields. We implement five state-of-the-art methodologies for explaining black-box machine learning models (LIME, PermutationSHAP, KernelSHAP, DiCE, CEM) and examine the strengths of each approach on the downstream task of student performance prediction for five massive open online courses. Our experiments demonstrate that the families of explainers do not agree with each other on feature importance for the same Bidirectional LSTM models with the same representative set of students. We use Principal Component Analysis, Jensen-Shannon distance, and Spearman's rank-order correlation to quantitatively cross-examine explanations across methods and courses. Furthermore, we validate explainer performance across curriculum-based prerequisite relationships. Our results come to the concerning conclusion that the choice of explainer is an important decision and is in fact paramount to the interpretation of the predictive results, even more so than the course the model is trained on. Source code and models are released at http://github.com/epfl-ml4ed/evaluating-explainers.

Natasa Krco, Thibault Laugel, Vincent Grari et al.

Most research on fair machine learning has prioritized optimizing criteria such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Despite these efforts, there remains a limited understanding of how different bias mitigation strategies affect individual predictions and whether they introduce arbitrariness into the debiasing process. This paper addresses these gaps by exploring whether models that achieve comparable fairness and accuracy metrics impact the same individuals and mitigate bias in a consistent manner. We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions: Impact Size (how many people were affected), Change Direction (positive versus negative changes), Decision Rates (impact on models' acceptance rates), Affected Subpopulations (who was affected), and Neglected Subpopulations (where unfairness persists). This framework is intended to help practitioners understand the impacts of debiasing processes and make better-informed decisions regarding model selection. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.