Patrick Loiseau

Felipe Garrido-Lucero, Benjamin Heymann, Maxime Vono et al.

We consider the dataset valuation problem, that is, the problem of quantifying the incremental gain, to some relevant pre-defined utility of a machine learning task, of aggregating an individual dataset to others. The Shapley value is a natural tool to perform dataset valuation due to its formal axiomatic justification, which can be combined with Monte Carlo integration to overcome the computational tractability challenges. Such generic approximation methods, however, remain expensive in some cases. In this paper, we exploit the knowledge about the structure of the dataset valuation problem to devise more efficient Shapley value estimators. We propose a novel approximation, referred to as discrete uniform Shapley, which is expressed as an expectation under a discrete uniform distribution with support of reasonable size. We justify the relevancy of the proposed framework via asymptotic and non-asymptotic theoretical guarantees and illustrate its benefits via an extensive set of numerical experiments.

Mathieu Molina, Patrick Loiseau

Discrimination in machine learning often arises along multiple dimensions (a.k.a. protected attributes); it is then desirable to ensure \emph{intersectional fairness} -- i.e., that no subgroup is discriminated against. It is known that ensuring \emph{marginal fairness} for every dimension independently is not sufficient in general. Due to the exponential number of subgroups, however, directly measuring intersectional fairness from data is impossible. In this paper, our primary goal is to understand in detail the relationship between marginal and intersectional fairness through statistical analysis. We first identify a set of sufficient conditions under which an exact relationship can be obtained. Then, we prove bounds (easily computable through marginal fairness and other meaningful statistical quantities) in high-probability on intersectional fairness in the general case. Beyond their descriptive value, we show that these theoretical bounds can be leveraged to derive a heuristic improving the approximation and bounds of intersectional fairness by choosing, in a relevant manner, protected attributes for which we describe intersectional subgroups. Finally, we test the performance of our approximations and bounds on real and synthetic data-sets.

Mathieu Molina, Nicolas Gast, Patrick Loiseau et al.

We consider the problem of online allocation subject to a long-term fairness penalty. Contrary to existing works, however, we do not assume that the decision-maker observes the protected attributes -- which is often unrealistic in practice. Instead they can purchase data that help estimate them from sources of different quality; and hence reduce the fairness penalty at some cost. We model this problem as a multi-armed bandit problem where each arm corresponds to the choice of a data source, coupled with the online allocation problem. We propose an algorithm that jointly solves both problems and show that it has a regret bounded by $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$. A key difficulty is that the rewards received by selecting a source are correlated by the fairness penalty, which leads to a need for randomization (despite a stochastic setting). Our algorithm takes into account contextual information available before the source selection, and can adapt to many different fairness notions. We also show that in some instances, the estimates used can be learned on the fly.

Patrick Loiseau, Simon Mauras, Minrui Xu

We study auction design in the celebrated interdependence model introduced by Milgrom and Weber [1982], where a mechanism designer allocates a good, maximizing the value of the agent who receives it, while inducing truthfulness using payments. In the lesser-studied procurement auctions, one allocates a chore, minimizing the cost incurred by the agent selected to perform it. Most of the past literature in theoretical computer science considers designing truthful mechanisms with constant approximation for the value setting, with restricted domains and monotone valuation functions. In this work, we study the general computational problems of optimizing the approximation ratio of truthful mechanism, for both value and cost, in the deterministic and randomized settings. Unlike most previous works, we remove the domain restriction and the monotonicity assumption imposed on value functions. We provide theoretical explanations for why some previously considered special cases are tractable, reducing them to classical combinatorial problems, and providing efficient algorithms and characterizations. We complement our positive results with hardness results for the general case, providing query complexity lower bounds, and proving the NP-Hardness of the general case.

Mélissa Tamine, Benjamin Heymann, Patrick Loiseau et al.

Semivalue-based data valuation uses cooperative-game theory intuitions to assign each data point a value reflecting its contribution to a downstream task. Still, those values depend on the practitioner's choice of utility, raising the question: How robust is semivalue-based data valuation to changes in the utility? This issue is critical when the utility is set as a trade-off between several criteria and when practitioners must select among multiple equally valid utilities. We address it by introducing the notion of a dataset's spatial signature: given a semivalue, we embed each data point into a lower-dimensional space where any utility becomes a linear functional, making the data valuation framework amenable to a simpler geometric picture. Building on this, we propose a practical methodology centered on an explicit robustness metric that informs practitioners whether and by how much their data valuation results will shift as the utility changes. We validate this approach across diverse datasets and semivalues, demonstrating strong agreement with rank-correlation analyses and offering analytical insight into how choosing a semivalue can amplify or diminish robustness.

Till Kletti, Jean-Michel Renders, Patrick Loiseau

We consider the problem of computing a sequence of rankings that maximizes consumer-side utility while minimizing producer-side individual unfairness of exposure. While prior work has addressed this problem using linear or quadratic programs on bistochastic matrices, such approaches, relying on Birkhoff-von Neumann (BvN) decompositions, are too slow to be implemented at large scale. In this paper we introduce a geometrical object, a polytope that we call expohedron, whose points represent all achievable exposures of items for a Position Based Model (PBM). We exhibit some of its properties and lay out a Carathéodory decomposition algorithm with complexity $O(n^2\log(n))$ able to express any point inside the expohedron as a convex sum of at most $n$ vertices, where $n$ is the number of items to rank. Such a decomposition makes it possible to express any feasible target exposure as a distribution over at most $n$ rankings. Furthermore we show that we can use this polytope to recover the whole Pareto frontier of the multi-objective fairness-utility optimization problem, using a simple geometrical procedure with complexity $O(n^2\log(n))$. Our approach compares favorably to linear or quadratic programming baselines in terms of algorithmic complexity and empirical runtime and is applicable to any merit that is a non-decreasing function of item relevance. Furthermore our solution can be expressed as a distribution over only $n$ permutations, instead of the $(n-1)^2 + 1$ achieved with BvN decompositions. We perform experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, confirming our theoretical results.

Vitalii Emelianov, Nicolas Gast, Krishna P. Gummadi et al.

Discrimination in selection problems such as hiring or college admission is often explained by implicit bias from the decision maker against disadvantaged demographic groups. In this paper, we consider a model where the decision maker receives a noisy estimate of each candidate's quality, whose variance depends on the candidate's group -- we argue that such differential variance is a key feature of many selection problems. We analyze two notable settings: in the first, the noise variances are unknown to the decision maker who simply picks the candidates with the highest estimated quality independently of their group; in the second, the variances are known and the decision maker picks candidates having the highest expected quality given the noisy estimate. We show that both baseline decision makers yield discrimination, although in opposite directions: the first leads to underrepresentation of the low-variance group while the second leads to underrepresentation of the high-variance group. We study the effect on the selection utility of imposing a fairness mechanism that we term the $γ$-rule (it is an extension of the classical four-fifths rule and it also includes demographic parity). In the first setting (with unknown variances), we prove that under mild conditions, imposing the $γ$-rule increases the selection utility -- here there is no trade-off between fairness and utility. In the second setting (with known variances), imposing the $γ$-rule decreases the utility but we prove a bound on the utility loss due to the fairness mechanism.

Johnnatan Messias, Mohamed Alzayat, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran et al.

Most public blockchain protocols, including the popular Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains, do not formally specify the order in which miners should select transactions from the pool of pending (or uncommitted) transactions for inclusion in the blockchain. Over the years, informal conventions or "norms" for transaction ordering have, however, emerged via the use of shared software by miners, e.g., the GetBlockTemplate (GBT) mining protocol in Bitcoin Core. Today, a widely held view is that Bitcoin miners prioritize transactions based on their offered "transaction fee-per-byte." Bitcoin users are, consequently, encouraged to increase the fees to accelerate the commitment of their transactions, particularly during periods of congestion. In this paper, we audit the Bitcoin blockchain and present statistically significant evidence of mining pools deviating from the norms to accelerate the commitment of transactions for which they have (i) a selfish or vested interest, or (ii) received dark-fee payments via opaque (non-public) side-channels. As blockchains are increasingly being used as a record-keeping substrate for a variety of decentralized (financial technology) systems, our findings call for an urgent discussion on defining neutrality norms that miners must adhere to when ordering transactions in the chains. Finally, we make our data sets and scripts publicly available.

Patrick Loiseau, Benjamin Roussillon

We consider the problem of finding optimal classifiers in an adversarial setting where the class-1 data is generated by an attacker whose objective is not known to the defender -- an aspect that is key to realistic applications but has so far been overlooked in the literature. To model this situation, we propose a Bayesian game framework where the defender chooses a classifier with no a priori restriction on the set of possible classifiers. The key difficulty in the proposed framework is that the set of possible classifiers is exponential in the set of possible data, which is itself exponential in the number of features used for classification. To counter this, we first show that Bayesian Nash equilibria can be characterized completely via functional threshold classifiers with a small number of parameters. We then show that this low-dimensional characterization enables to develop a training method to compute provably approximately optimal classifiers in a scalable manner; and to develop a learning algorithm for the online setting with low regret (both independent of the dimension of the set of possible data). We illustrate our results through simulations.

Mohamed Alzayat, Johnnatan Messias, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran et al.

We study efficiency in a proof-of-work blockchain with non-zero latencies, focusing in particular on the (inequality in) individual miners' efficiencies. Prior work attributed differences in miners' efficiencies mostly to attacks, but we pursue a different question: Can inequality in miners' efficiencies be explained by delays, even when all miners are honest? Traditionally, such efficiency-related questions were tackled only at the level of the overall system, and in a peer-to-peer (P2P) setting where miners directly connect to one another. Despite it being common today for miners to pool compute capacities in a mining pool managed by a centralized coordinator, efficiency in such a coordinated setting has barely been studied. In this paper, we propose a simple model of a proof-of-work blockchain with latencies for both the P2P and the coordinated settings. We derive a closed-form expression for the efficiency in the coordinated setting with an arbitrary number of miners and arbitrary latencies, both for the overall system and for each individual miner. We leverage this result to show that inequalities arise from variability in the delays, but that if all miners are equidistant from the coordinator, they have equal efficiency irrespective of their compute capacities. We then prove that, under a natural consistency condition, the overall system efficiency in the P2P setting is higher than that in the coordinated setting. Finally, we perform a simulation-based study to demonstrate that even in the P2P setting delays between miners introduce inequalities, and that there is a more complex interplay between delays and compute capacities.

Vitalii Emelianov, Nicolas Gast, Krishna P. Gummadi et al.

Quota-based fairness mechanisms like the so-called Rooney rule or four-fifths rule are used in selection problems such as hiring or college admission to reduce inequalities based on sensitive demographic attributes. These mechanisms are often viewed as introducing a trade-off between selection fairness and utility. In recent work, however, Kleinberg and Raghavan showed that, in the presence of implicit bias in estimating candidates' quality, the Rooney rule can increase the utility of the selection process. We argue that even in the absence of implicit bias, the estimates of candidates' quality from different groups may differ in another fundamental way, namely, in their variance. We term this phenomenon implicit variance and we ask: can fairness mechanisms be beneficial to the utility of a selection process in the presence of implicit variance (even in the absence of implicit bias)? To answer this question, we propose a simple model in which candidates have a true latent quality that is drawn from a group-independent normal distribution. To make the selection, a decision maker receives an unbiased estimate of the quality of each candidate, with normal noise, but whose variance depends on the candidate's group. We then compare the utility obtained by imposing a fairness mechanism that we term $γ$-rule (it includes demographic parity and the four-fifths rule as special cases), to that of a group-oblivious selection algorithm that picks the candidates with the highest estimated quality independently of their group. Our main result shows that the demographic parity mechanism always increases the selection utility, while any $γ$-rule weakly increases it. We extend our model to a two-stage selection process where the true quality is observed at the second stage. We discuss multiple extensions of our results, in particular to different distributions of the true latent quality.

Sarath Yasodharan, Patrick Loiseau

We study nonzero-sum hypothesis testing games that arise in the context of adversarial classification, in both the Bayesian as well as the Neyman-Pearson frameworks. We first show that these games admit mixed strategy Nash equilibria, and then we examine some interesting concentration phenomena of these equilibria. Our main results are on the exponential rates of convergence of classification errors at equilibrium, which are analogous to the well-known Chernoff-Stein lemma and Chernoff information that describe the error exponents in the classical binary hypothesis testing problem, but with parameters derived from the adversarial model. The results are validated through numerical experiments.

Vitalii Emelianov, George Arvanitakis, Nicolas Gast et al.

The rise of algorithmic decision making led to active researches on how to define and guarantee fairness, mostly focusing on one-shot decision making. In several important applications such as hiring, however, decisions are made in multiple stage with additional information at each stage. In such cases, fairness issues remain poorly understood. In this paper we study fairness in $k$-stage selection problems where additional features are observed at every stage. We first introduce two fairness notions, local (per stage) and global (final stage) fairness, that extend the classical fairness notions to the $k$-stage setting. We propose a simple model based on a probabilistic formulation and show that the locally and globally fair selections that maximize precision can be computed via a linear program. We then define the price of local fairness to measure the loss of precision induced by local constraints; and investigate theoretically and empirically this quantity. In particular, our experiments show that the price of local fairness is generally smaller when the sensitive attribute is observed at the first stage; but globally fair selections are more locally fair when the sensitive attribute is observed at the second stage---hence in both cases it is often possible to have a selection that has a small price of local fairness and is close to locally fair.

Dong Quan Vu, Patrick Loiseau, Alonso Silva et al.

Resource allocation games such as the famous Colonel Blotto (CB) and Hide-and-Seek (HS) games are often used to model a large variety of practical problems, but only in their one-shot versions. Indeed, due to their extremely large strategy space, it remains an open question how one can efficiently learn in these games. In this work, we show that the online CB and HS games can be cast as path planning problems with side-observations (SOPPP): at each stage, a learner chooses a path on a directed acyclic graph and suffers the sum of losses that are adversarially assigned to the corresponding edges; and she then receives semi-bandit feedback with side-observations (i.e., she observes the losses on the chosen edges plus some others). We propose a novel algorithm, EXP3-OE, the first-of-its-kind with guaranteed efficient running time for SOPPP without requiring any auxiliary oracle. We provide an expected-regret bound of EXP3-OE in SOPPP matching the order of the best benchmark in the literature. Moreover, we introduce additional assumptions on the observability model under which we can further improve the regret bounds of EXP3-OE. We illustrate the benefit of using EXP3-OE in SOPPP by applying it to the online CB and HS games.

Mohsen Minaei, Mainack Mondal, Patrick Loiseau et al.

Most social platforms offer mechanisms allowing users to delete their posts, and a significant fraction of users exercise this right to be forgotten. However, ironically, users' attempt to reduce attention to sensitive posts via deletion, in practice, attracts unwanted attention from stalkers specifically to those posts. Thus, deletions may leave users more vulnerable to attacks on their privacy in general. Users hoping to make their posts forgotten face a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" dilemma. Many are shifting towards ephemeral social platform like Snapchat, which will deprive us of important user-data archival. In the form of intermittent withdrawals, we present, Lethe, a novel solution to this problem of forgetting the forgotten. If the next-generation social platforms are willing to give up the uninterrupted availability of non-deleted posts by a very small fraction, Lethe provides privacy to the deleted posts over long durations. In presence of Lethe, an adversarial observer becomes unsure if some posts are permanently deleted or just temporarily withdrawn by Lethe; at the same time, the adversarial observer is overwhelmed by a large number of falsely flagged undeleted posts. To demonstrate the feasibility and performance of Lethe, we analyze large-scale real data about users' deletion over Twitter and thoroughly investigate how to choose time duration distributions for alternating between temporary withdrawals and resurrections of non-deleted posts. We find a favorable trade-off between privacy, availability and adversarial overhead in different settings for users exercising their right to delete. We show that, even against an ultimate adversary with an uninterrupted access to the entire platform, Lethe offers deletion privacy for up to 3 months from the time of deletion, while maintaining content availability as high as 95% and keeping the adversarial precision to 20%.

Vijay Kamble, Patrick Loiseau, Jean Walrand

We describe an approximate dynamic programming (ADP) approach to compute approximations of the optimal strategies and of the minimal losses that can be guaranteed in discounted repeated games with vector-valued losses. Such games prominently arise in the analysis of regret in repeated decision-making in adversarial environments, also known as adversarial online learning. At the core of our approach is a characterization of the lower Pareto frontier of the set of expected losses that a player can guarantee in these games as the unique fixed point of a set-valued dynamic programming operator. When applied to the problem of regret minimization with discounted losses, our approach yields algorithms that achieve markedly improved performance bounds compared to off-the-shelf online learning algorithms like Hedge. These results thus suggest the significant potential of ADP-based approaches in adversarial online learning.

Michela Chessa, Jens Grossklags, Patrick Loiseau

The amount of personal information contributed by individuals to digital repositories such as social network sites has grown substantially. The existence of this data offers unprecedented opportunities for data analytics research in various domains of societal importance including medicine and public policy. The results of these analyses can be considered a public good which benefits data contributors as well as individuals who are not making their data available. At the same time, the release of personal information carries perceived and actual privacy risks to the contributors. Our research addresses this problem area. In our work, we study a game-theoretic model in which individuals take control over participation in data analytics projects in two ways: 1) individuals can contribute data at a self-chosen level of precision, and 2) individuals can decide whether they want to contribute at all (or not). From the analyst's perspective, we investigate to which degree the research analyst has flexibility to set requirements for data precision, so that individuals are still willing to contribute to the project, and the quality of the estimation improves. We study this tradeoff scenario for populations of homogeneous and heterogeneous individuals, and determine Nash equilibria that reflect the optimal level of participation and precision of contributions. We further prove that the analyst can substantially increase the accuracy of the analysis by imposing a lower bound on the precision of the data that users can reveal.

Nicolas Gast, Stratis Ioannidis, Patrick Loiseau et al.

Linear regression is a fundamental building block of statistical data analysis. It amounts to estimating the parameters of a linear model that maps input features to corresponding outputs. In the classical setting where the precision of each data point is fixed, the famous Aitken/Gauss-Markov theorem in statistics states that generalized least squares (GLS) is a so-called "Best Linear Unbiased Estimator" (BLUE). In modern data science, however, one often faces strategic data sources, namely, individuals who incur a cost for providing high-precision data. In this paper, we study a setting in which features are public but individuals choose the precision of the outputs they reveal to an analyst. We assume that the analyst performs linear regression on this dataset, and individuals benefit from the outcome of this estimation. We model this scenario as a game where individuals minimize a cost comprising two components: (a) an (agent-specific) disclosure cost for providing high-precision data; and (b) a (global) estimation cost representing the inaccuracy in the linear model estimate. In this game, the linear model estimate is a public good that benefits all individuals. We establish that this game has a unique non-trivial Nash equilibrium. We study the efficiency of this equilibrium and we prove tight bounds on the price of stability for a large class of disclosure and estimation costs. Finally, we study the estimator accuracy achieved at equilibrium. We show that, in general, Aitken's theorem does not hold under strategic data sources, though it does hold if individuals have identical disclosure costs (up to a multiplicative factor). When individuals have non-identical costs, we derive a bound on the improvement of the equilibrium estimation cost that can be achieved by deviating from GLS, under mild assumptions on the disclosure cost functions.