Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks.Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth?Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty.In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks.We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products.A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks.We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks.We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated.Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores.In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty.This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned models to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers.A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models.These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

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 1 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.

Considerable research effort has been guided towards algorithmic fairness but real-world adoption of bias reduction techniques is still scarce. Existing methods are either metric-or model-specific, require access to sensitive attributes at inference time, or carry high development or deployment costs. This work explores the unfairness that emerges when optimizing ML models solely for predictive performance, and how to mitigate it with a simple and easily deployed intervention: fairness-aware hyperparameter optimization (HO). We propose and evaluate fairness-aware variants of three popular HO algorithms: Fair Random Search, Fair TPE, and Fairband. We validate our approach on a real-world bank account opening fraud case-study, as well as on three datasets from the fairness literature. Results show that, without extra training cost, it is feasible to find models with 111% mean fairness increase and just 6% decrease in performance when compared with fairness-blind HO.1

Although recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are state-of-the-art in numerous sequential decision-making tasks, there has been little research on explaining their predictions. In this work, we present TimeSHAP, a model-agnostic recurrent explainer that builds upon KernelSHAP and extends it to the sequential domain. TimeSHAP computes feature-, timestep-, and cell-level attributions. As sequences may be arbitrarily long, we further propose a pruning method that is shown to dramatically decrease both its computational cost and the variance of its attributions. We use TimeSHAP to explain the predictions of a real-world bank account takeover fraud detection RNN model, and draw key insights from its explanations: i) the model identifies important features and events aligned with what fraud analysts consider cues for account takeover; ii) positive predicted sequences can be pruned to only 10% of the original length, as older events have residual attribution values; iii) the most recent input event of positive predictions only contributes on average to 41% of the model's score; iv) notably high attribution to client's age, upheld on higher false positive rates for older clients.