Stability and aggregation of ranked gene lists

Ranked gene lists are highly instable in the sense that similar measures of differential gene expression may yield very different rankings, and that a small change of the data set usually affects the obtained gene list considerably. Stability issues have long been under-considered in the literature, but they have grown to a hot topic in the last few years, perhaps as a consequence of the increasing skepticism on the reproducibility and clinical applicability of molecular research findings. In this article, we review existing approaches for the assessment of stability of ranked gene lists and the related problem of aggregation, give some practical recommendations, and warn against potential misuse of these methods. This overview is illustrated through an application to a recent leukemia data set using the freely available Bioconductor package GeneSelector

iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making

People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: giving adequate success rates to specifically protected groups. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention, and this paper advances this less explored direction. The paper introduces a method for probabilistically mapping user records into a low-rank representation that reconciles individual fairness and the utility of classifiers and rankings in downstream applications. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on a variety of real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting.Comment: Accepted at ICDE 2019. Please cite the ICDE 2019 proceedings versio

Critical review of multi-criteria decision aid methods in conceptual design phases: application to the development of a solar collector structure

At each stage of the product development process, the designers are facing an important task which consists of decision making. Two cases are observed: the problem of concept selection in conceptual design phases and, the problem of pre-dimensioning once concept choices are made. Making decisions in conceptual design phases on a sound basis is one of the most difficult challenges in engineering design, especially when innovative concepts are introduced. On the one hand, designers deal with imprecise data about design alternatives. On the other hand, design objectives and requirements are usually not clear in these phases. The greatest opportunities to reduce product life cycle costs usually occur during the first conceptual design phases. The need for reliable multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods is thus greatest at early conceptual design phases. Various MCDA methods are proposed in the literature. The main criticism of these methods is that they usually yield different results for the same problem [22,23,25]. In this work, an analysis of six MCDA methods (weighed sum, weighted product, Kim & Lin, compromise programming, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE I) was conducted. Our analysis was performed via an industrial case of solar collector structure development. The objective is to define the most appropriate MCDA methods in term of three criteria: (i) the consistency of the results, (ii) the ease of understanding and, (iii) the adaptation of the decision type. The results show that TOPSIS is the most consistent MCDA method in our case

Decision support model for the selection of asphalt wearing courses in highly trafficked roads

The suitable choice of the materials forming the wearing course of highly trafficked roads is a delicate task because of their direct interaction with vehicles. Furthermore, modern roads must be planned according to sustainable development goals, which is complex because some of these might be in conflict. Under this premise, this paper develops a multi-criteria decision support model based on the analytic hierarchy process and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution to facilitate the selection of wearing courses in European countries. Variables were modelled using either fuzzy logic or Monte Carlo methods, depending on their nature. The views of a panel of experts on the problem were collected and processed using the generalized reduced gradient algorithm and a distance-based aggregation approach. The results showed a clear preponderance by stone mastic asphalt over the remaining alternatives in different scenarios evaluated through sensitivity analysis. The research leading to these results was framed in the European FP7 Project DURABROADS (No. 605404).The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 605404

{iFair}: {L}earning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making

People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: ensuring that each ethnic or social group receives its fair share in the outcome of classifiers and rankings. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention. This paper introduces a method for probabilistically clustering user records into a low-rank representation that captures individual fairness yet also achieves high accuracy in classification and regression models. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. Since the case for fairness is ubiquitous across many tasks, we aim to learn general representations that can be applied to arbitrary downstream use-cases. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on two real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting

Matching Code and Law: Achieving Algorithmic Fairness with Optimal Transport

Increasingly, discrimination by algorithms is perceived as a societal and legal problem. As a response, a number of criteria for implementing algorithmic fairness in machine learning have been developed in the literature. This paper proposes the Continuous Fairness Algorithm (CFA$\theta$) which enables a continuous interpolation between different fairness definitions. More specifically, we make three main contributions to the existing literature. First, our approach allows the decision maker to continuously vary between specific concepts of individual and group fairness. As a consequence, the algorithm enables the decision maker to adopt intermediate ``worldviews'' on the degree of discrimination encoded in algorithmic processes, adding nuance to the extreme cases of ``we're all equal'' (WAE) and ``what you see is what you get'' (WYSIWYG) proposed so far in the literature. Second, we use optimal transport theory, and specifically the concept of the barycenter, to maximize decision maker utility under the chosen fairness constraints. Third, the algorithm is able to handle cases of intersectionality, i.e., of multi-dimensional discrimination of certain groups on grounds of several criteria. We discuss three main examples (credit applications; college admissions; insurance contracts) and map out the legal and policy implications of our approach. The explicit formalization of the trade-off between individual and group fairness allows this post-processing approach to be tailored to different situational contexts in which one or the other fairness criterion may take precedence. Finally, we evaluate our model experimentally.Comment: Vastly extended new version, now including computational experiment