Steven Y. Wu

Nil-Jana Akpinar, Manish Nagireddy, Logan Stapleton et al.

Motivated by the growing importance of reducing unfairness in ML predictions, Fair-ML researchers have presented an extensive suite of algorithmic 'fairness-enhancing' remedies. Most existing algorithms, however, are agnostic to the sources of the observed unfairness. As a result, the literature currently lacks guiding frameworks to specify conditions under which each algorithmic intervention can potentially alleviate the underpinning cause of unfairness. To close this gap, we scrutinize the underlying biases (e.g., in the training data or design choices) that cause observational unfairness. We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases and assess the effectiveness of algorithmic remedies in the presence of specific types of bias. We call this process the bias(stress)-testing of algorithmic interventions. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. This stylized setup offers the distinct capability of testing fairness interventions beyond observational data and against an unbiased benchmark. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention in the biased setting with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection. We illustrate the utility of our toolkit via a proof-of-concept case study on synthetic data. Our empirical analysis showcases the type of insights that can be obtained through our simulations.

Adam Block, Mark Bun, Rathin Desai et al.

Due to statistical lower bounds on the learnability of many function classes under privacy constraints, there has been recent interest in leveraging public data to improve the performance of private learning algorithms. In this model, algorithms must always guarantee differential privacy with respect to the private samples while also ensuring learning guarantees when the private data distribution is sufficiently close to that of the public data. Previous work has demonstrated that when sufficient public, unlabelled data is available, private learning can be made statistically tractable, but the resulting algorithms have all been computationally inefficient. In this work, we present the first computationally efficient, algorithms to provably leverage public data to learn privately whenever a function class is learnable non-privately, where our notion of computational efficiency is with respect to the number of calls to an optimization oracle for the function class. In addition to this general result, we provide specialized algorithms with improved sample complexities in the special cases when the function class is convex or when the task is binary classification.

Kevin Ren, Santiago Cortes-Gomez, Carlos Miguel Patiño et al.

Recent work has investigated the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) as zero-shot models for generating individual-level characteristics (e.g., to serve as risk models or augment survey datasets). However, when should a user have confidence that an LLM will provide high-quality predictions for their particular task? To address this question, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of LLMs' zero-shot predictive capabilities across a wide range of tabular prediction tasks. We find that LLMs' performance is highly variable, both on tasks within the same dataset and across different datasets. However, when the LLM performs well on the base prediction task, its predicted probabilities become a stronger signal for individual-level accuracy. Then, we construct metrics to predict LLMs' performance at the task level, aiming to distinguish between tasks where LLMs may perform well and where they are likely unsuitable. We find that some of these metrics, each of which are assessed without labeled data, yield strong signals of LLMs' predictive performance on new tasks.

Satyapriya Krishna, Tessa Han, Alex Gu et al.

As various post hoc explanation methods are increasingly being leveraged to explain complex models in high-stakes settings, it becomes critical to develop a deeper understanding of whether and when the explanations output by these methods disagree with each other, and how such disagreements are resolved in practice. However, there is little to no research that provides answers to these critical questions. In this work, we formalize and study the disagreement problem in explainable machine learning. More specifically, we define the notion of disagreement between explanations, analyze how often such disagreements occur in practice, and how practitioners resolve these disagreements. We first conduct interviews with data scientists to understand what constitutes disagreement between explanations generated by different methods for the same model prediction, and introduce a novel quantitative framework to formalize this understanding. We then leverage this framework to carry out a rigorous empirical analysis with four real-world datasets, six state-of-the-art post hoc explanation methods, and six different predictive models, to measure the extent of disagreement between the explanations generated by various popular explanation methods. In addition, we carry out an online user study with data scientists to understand how they resolve the aforementioned disagreements. Our results indicate that (1) state-of-the-art explanation methods often disagree in terms of the explanations they output, and (2) machine learning practitioners often employ ad hoc heuristics when resolving such disagreements. These findings suggest that practitioners may be relying on misleading explanations when making consequential decisions. They also underscore the importance of developing principled frameworks for effectively evaluating and comparing explanations output by various explanation techniques.

Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Giuseppe Vietri et al.

One of the most effective algorithms for differentially private learning and optimization is objective perturbation. This technique augments a given optimization problem (e.g. deriving from an ERM problem) with a random linear term, and then exactly solves it. However, to date, analyses of this approach crucially rely on the convexity and smoothness of the objective function, limiting its generality. We give two algorithms that extend this approach substantially. The first algorithm requires nothing except boundedness of the loss function, and operates over a discrete domain. Its privacy and accuracy guarantees hold even without assuming convexity. This gives an oracle-efficient optimization algorithm over arbitrary discrete domains that is comparable in its generality to the exponential mechanism. The second algorithm operates over a continuous domain and requires only that the loss function be bounded and Lipschitz in its continuous parameter. Its privacy analysis does not require convexity. Its accuracy analysis does require convexity, but does not require second order conditions like smoothness. Even without convexity, this algorithm can be generically used as an oracle-efficient optimization algorithm, with accuracy evaluated empirically. We complement our theoretical results with an empirical evaluation of the non-convex case, in which we use an integer program solver as our optimization oracle. We find that for the problem of learning linear classifiers, directly optimizing for 0/1 loss using our approach can out-perform the more standard approach of privately optimizing a convex-surrogate loss function on the Adult dataset.