Nazanin Nezami

Francesco Di Carlo, Nazanin Nezami, Hadis Anahideh et al.

Despite the potential benefits of machine learning (ML) in high-risk decision-making domains, the deployment of ML is not accessible to practitioners, and there is a risk of discrimination. To establish trust and acceptance of ML in such domains, democratizing ML tools and fairness consideration are crucial. In this paper, we introduce FairPilot, an interactive system designed to promote the responsible development of ML models by exploring a combination of various models, different hyperparameters, and a wide range of fairness definitions. We emphasize the challenge of selecting the ``best" ML model and demonstrate how FairPilot allows users to select a set of evaluation criteria and then displays the Pareto frontier of models and hyperparameters as an interactive map. FairPilot is the first system to combine these features, offering a unique opportunity for users to responsibly choose their model.

Nazanin Nezami, Hadis Anahideh

Surrogate Optimization (SO) algorithms have shown promise for optimizing expensive black-box functions. However, their performance is heavily influenced by hyperparameters related to sampling and surrogate fitting, which poses a challenge to their widespread adoption. We investigate the impact of hyperparameters on various SO algorithms and propose a Hyperparameter Adaptive Search for SO (HASSO) approach. HASSO is not a hyperparameter tuning algorithm, but a generic self-adjusting SO algorithm that dynamically tunes its own hyperparameters while concurrently optimizing the primary objective function, without requiring additional evaluations. The aim is to improve the accessibility, effectiveness, and convergence speed of SO algorithms for practitioners. Our approach identifies and modifies the most influential hyperparameters specific to each problem and SO approach, reducing the need for manual tuning without significantly increasing the computational burden. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of HASSO in enhancing the performance of various SO algorithms across different global optimization test problems.

Nazanin Nezami, Hadis Anahideh

Optimizing costly black-box functions within a constrained evaluation budget presents significant challenges in many real-world applications. Surrogate Optimization (SO) is a common resolution, yet its proprietary nature introduced by the complexity of surrogate models and the sampling core (e.g., acquisition functions) often leads to a lack of explainability and transparency. While existing literature has primarily concentrated on enhancing convergence to global optima, the practical interpretation of newly proposed strategies remains underexplored, especially in batch evaluation settings. In this paper, we propose \emph{Inclusive} Explainability Metrics for Surrogate Optimization (IEMSO), a comprehensive set of model-agnostic metrics designed to enhance the transparency, trustworthiness, and explainability of the SO approaches. Through these metrics, we provide both intermediate and post-hoc explanations to practitioners before and after performing expensive evaluations to gain trust. We consider four primary categories of metrics, each targeting a specific aspect of the SO process: Sampling Core Metrics, Batch Properties Metrics, Optimization Process Metrics, and Feature Importance. Our experimental evaluations demonstrate the significant potential of the proposed metrics across different benchmarks.

Hadis Anahideh, Parian Haghighat, Nazanin Nezami et al.

Colleges and universities use predictive analytics in a variety of ways to increase student success rates. Despite the potential for predictive analytics, two major barriers exist to their adoption in higher education: (a) the lack of democratization in deployment, and (b) the potential to exacerbate inequalities. Education researchers and policymakers encounter numerous challenges in deploying predictive modeling in practice. These challenges present in different steps of modeling including data preparation, model development, and evaluation. Nevertheless, each of these steps can introduce additional bias to the system if not appropriately performed. Most large-scale and nationally representative education data sets suffer from a significant number of incomplete responses from the research participants. While many education-related studies addressed the challenges of missing data, little is known about the impact of handling missing values on the fairness of predictive outcomes in practice. In this paper, we set out to first assess the disparities in predictive modeling outcomes for college-student success, then investigate the impact of imputation techniques on the model performance and fairness using a commonly used set of metrics. We conduct a prospective evaluation to provide a less biased estimation of future performance and fairness than an evaluation of historical data. Our comprehensive analysis of a real large-scale education dataset reveals key insights on modeling disparities and how imputation techniques impact the fairness of the student-success predictive outcome under different testing scenarios. Our results indicate that imputation introduces bias if the testing set follows the historical distribution. However, if the injustice in society is addressed and consequently the upcoming batch of observations is equalized, the model would be less biased.

Hadis Anahideh, Nazanin Nezami, Abolfazl Asudeh

It is of critical importance to be aware of the historical discrimination embedded in the data and to consider a fairness measure to reduce bias throughout the predictive modeling pipeline. Given various notions of fairness defined in the literature, investigating the correlation and interaction among metrics is vital for addressing unfairness. Practitioners and data scientists should be able to comprehend each metric and examine their impact on one another given the context, use case, and regulations. Exploring the combinatorial space of different metrics for such examination is burdensome. To alleviate the burden of selecting fairness notions for consideration, we propose a framework that estimates the correlation among fairness notions. Our framework consequently identifies a set of diverse and semantically distinct metrics as representative for a given context. We propose a Monte-Carlo sampling technique for computing the correlations between fairness metrics by indirect and efficient perturbation in the model space. Using the estimated correlations, we then find a subset of representative metrics. The paper proposes a generic method that can be generalized to any arbitrary set of fairness metrics. We showcase the validity of the proposal using comprehensive experiments on real-world benchmark datasets.