Sérgio Jesus

Kasun Amarasinghe, Kit T. Rodolfa, Sérgio Jesus et al. · cmu

Most existing evaluations of explainable machine learning (ML) methods rely on simplifying assumptions or proxies that do not reflect real-world use cases; the handful of more robust evaluations on real-world settings have shortcomings in their design, resulting in limited conclusions of methods' real-world utility. In this work, we seek to bridge this gap by conducting a study that evaluates three popular explainable ML methods in a setting consistent with the intended deployment context. We build on a previous study on e-commerce fraud detection and make crucial modifications to its setup relaxing the simplifying assumptions made in the original work that departed from the deployment context. In doing so, we draw drastically different conclusions from the earlier work and find no evidence for the incremental utility of the tested methods in the task. Our results highlight how seemingly trivial experimental design choices can yield misleading conclusions, with lessons about the necessity of not only evaluating explainable ML methods using tasks, data, users, and metrics grounded in the intended deployment contexts but also developing methods tailored to specific applications. In addition, we believe the design of this experiment can serve as a template for future study designs evaluating explainable ML methods in other real-world contexts.

Ada Martin, Valerie Chen, Sérgio Jesus et al. · cmu

When conducting user studies to ascertain the usefulness of model explanations in aiding human decision-making, it is important to use real-world use cases, data, and users. However, this process can be resource-intensive, allowing only a limited number of explanation methods to be evaluated. Simulated user evaluations (SimEvals), which use machine learning models as a proxy for human users, have been proposed as an intermediate step to select promising explanation methods. In this work, we conduct the first SimEvals on a real-world use case to evaluate whether explanations can better support ML-assisted decision-making in e-commerce fraud detection. We study whether SimEvals can corroborate findings from a user study conducted in this fraud detection context. In particular, we find that SimEvals suggest that all considered explainers are equally performant, and none beat a baseline without explanations -- this matches the conclusions of the original user study. Such correspondences between our results and the original user study provide initial evidence in favor of using SimEvals before running user studies. We also explore the use of SimEvals as a cheap proxy to explore an alternative user study set-up. We hope that this work motivates further study of when and how SimEvals should be used to aid in the design of real-world evaluations.

Sérgio Jesus, José Pombal, Duarte Alves et al.

Evaluating new techniques on realistic datasets plays a crucial role in the development of ML research and its broader adoption by practitioners. In recent years, there has been a significant increase of publicly available unstructured data resources for computer vision and NLP tasks. However, tabular data -- which is prevalent in many high-stakes domains -- has been lagging behind. To bridge this gap, we present Bank Account Fraud (BAF), the first publicly available privacy-preserving, large-scale, realistic suite of tabular datasets. The suite was generated by applying state-of-the-art tabular data generation techniques on an anonymized,real-world bank account opening fraud detection dataset. This setting carries a set of challenges that are commonplace in real-world applications, including temporal dynamics and significant class imbalance. Additionally, to allow practitioners to stress test both performance and fairness of ML methods, each dataset variant of BAF contains specific types of data bias. With this resource, we aim to provide the research community with a more realistic, complete, and robust test bed to evaluate novel and existing methods.

André F Cruz, Catarina Belém, Sérgio Jesus et al.

Tabular data is prevalent in many high-stakes domains, such as financial services or public policy. Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT) are popular in these settings due to their scalability, performance, and low training cost. While fairness in these domains is a foremost concern, existing in-processing Fair ML methods are either incompatible with GBDT, or incur in significant performance losses while taking considerably longer to train. We present FairGBM, a dual ascent learning framework for training GBDT under fairness constraints, with little to no impact on predictive performance when compared to unconstrained GBDT. Since observational fairness metrics are non-differentiable, we propose smooth convex error rate proxies for common fairness criteria, enabling gradient-based optimization using a ``proxy-Lagrangian'' formulation. Our implementation shows an order of magnitude speedup in training time relative to related work, a pivotal aspect to foster the widespread adoption of FairGBM by real-world practitioners.

Jean V. Alves, Diogo Leitão, Sérgio Jesus et al.

Learning to defer (L2D) aims to improve human-AI collaboration systems by learning how to defer decisions to humans when they are more likely to be correct than an ML classifier. Existing research in L2D overlooks key real-world aspects that impede its practical adoption, namely: i) neglecting cost-sensitive scenarios, where type I and type II errors have different costs; ii) requiring concurrent human predictions for every instance of the training dataset; and iii) not dealing with human work-capacity constraints. To address these issues, we propose the \textit{deferral under cost and capacity constraints framework} (DeCCaF). DeCCaF is a novel L2D approach, employing supervised learning to model the probability of human error under less restrictive data requirements (only one expert prediction per instance) and using constraint programming to globally minimize the error cost, subject to workload limitations. We test DeCCaF in a series of cost-sensitive fraud detection scenarios with different teams of 9 synthetic fraud analysts, with individual work-capacity constraints. The results demonstrate that our approach performs significantly better than the baselines in a wide array of scenarios, achieving an average $8.4\%$ reduction in the misclassification cost. The code used for the experiments is available at https://github.com/feedzai/deccaf

Jean V. Alves, Diogo Leitão, Sérgio Jesus et al.

Public dataset limitations have significantly hindered the development and benchmarking of learning to defer (L2D) algorithms, which aim to optimally combine human and AI capabilities in hybrid decision-making systems. In such systems, human availability and domain-specific concerns introduce difficulties, while obtaining human predictions for training and evaluation is costly. Financial fraud detection is a high-stakes setting where algorithms and human experts often work in tandem; however, there are no publicly available datasets for L2D concerning this important application of human-AI teaming. To fill this gap in L2D research, we introduce the Financial Fraud Alert Review Dataset (FiFAR), a synthetic bank account fraud detection dataset, containing the predictions of a team of 50 highly complex and varied synthetic fraud analysts, with varied bias and feature dependence. We also provide a realistic definition of human work capacity constraints, an aspect of L2D systems that is often overlooked, allowing for extensive testing of assignment systems under real-world conditions. We use our dataset to develop a capacity-aware L2D method and rejection learning approach under realistic data availability conditions, and benchmark these baselines under an array of 300 distinct testing scenarios. We believe that this dataset will serve as a pivotal instrument in facilitating a systematic, rigorous, reproducible, and transparent evaluation and comparison of L2D methods, thereby fostering the development of more synergistic human-AI collaboration in decision-making systems. The public dataset and detailed synthetic expert information are available at: https://github.com/feedzai/fifar-dataset

Sérgio Jesus, Pedro Saleiro, Inês Oliveira e Silva et al.

Aequitas Flow is an open-source framework and toolkit for end-to-end Fair Machine Learning (ML) experimentation, and benchmarking in Python. This package fills integration gaps that exist in other fair ML packages. In addition to the existing audit capabilities in Aequitas, the Aequitas Flow module provides a pipeline for fairness-aware model training, hyperparameter optimization, and evaluation, enabling easy-to-use and rapid experiments and analysis of results. Aimed at ML practitioners and researchers, the framework offers implementations of methods, datasets, metrics, and standard interfaces for these components to improve extensibility. By facilitating the development of fair ML practices, Aequitas Flow hopes to enhance the incorporation of fairness concepts in AI systems making AI systems more robust and fair.

Inês Oliveira e Silva, Sérgio Jesus, Iker Perez et al.

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Sérgio Jesus, Catarina Belém, Vladimir Balayan et al.

There have been several research works proposing new Explainable AI (XAI) methods designed to generate model explanations having specific properties, or desiderata, such as fidelity, robustness, or human-interpretability. However, explanations are seldom evaluated based on their true practical impact on decision-making tasks. Without that assessment, explanations might be chosen that, in fact, hurt the overall performance of the combined system of ML model + end-users. This study aims to bridge this gap by proposing XAI Test, an application-grounded evaluation methodology tailored to isolate the impact of providing the end-user with different levels of information. We conducted an experiment following XAI Test to evaluate three popular post-hoc explanation methods -- LIME, SHAP, and TreeInterpreter -- on a real-world fraud detection task, with real data, a deployed ML model, and fraud analysts. During the experiment, we gradually increased the information provided to the fraud analysts in three stages: Data Only, i.e., just transaction data without access to model score nor explanations, Data + ML Model Score, and Data + ML Model Score + Explanations. Using strong statistical analysis, we show that, in general, these popular explainers have a worse impact than desired. Some of the conclusion highlights include: i) showing Data Only results in the highest decision accuracy and the slowest decision time among all variants tested, ii) all the explainers improve accuracy over the Data + ML Model Score variant but still result in lower accuracy when compared with Data Only; iii) LIME was the least preferred by users, probably due to its substantially lower variability of explanations from case to case.