John C Mitchell

Sanjari Srivastava, Piotr Mardziel, Zhikhun Zhang et al.

Fairness and privacy are two important values machine learning (ML) practitioners often seek to operationalize in models. Fairness aims to reduce model bias for social/demographic sub-groups. Privacy via differential privacy (DP) mechanisms, on the other hand, limits the impact of any individual's training data on the resulting model. The trade-offs between privacy and fairness goals of trustworthy ML pose a challenge to those wishing to address both. We show that DP amplifies gender, racial, and religious bias when fine-tuning large language models (LLMs), producing models more biased than ones fine-tuned without DP. We find the cause of the amplification to be a disparity in convergence of gradients across sub-groups. Through the case of binary gender bias, we demonstrate that Counterfactual Data Augmentation (CDA), a known method for addressing bias, also mitigates bias amplification by DP. As a consequence, DP and CDA together can be used to fine-tune models while maintaining both fairness and privacy.

Allison Sihan Jia, Daniel Huang, Nikhil Vytla et al.

We introduce the Agent GPA (Goal-Plan-Action) framework: an evaluation paradigm based on an agent's operational loop of setting goals, devising plans, and executing actions. The framework includes five evaluation metrics: Goal Fulfillment, Logical Consistency, Execution Efficiency, Plan Quality, and Plan Adherence. Logical Consistency checks that an agent's actions are consistent with its prior actions. Execution Efficiency checks whether the agent executes in the most efficient way to achieve its goal. Plan Quality checks whether an agent's plans are aligned with its goals; Plan Adherence checks if an agent's actions are aligned with its plan; and Goal Fulfillment checks that agent's final outcomes match the stated goals. Our experimental results on two benchmark datasets - the public TRAIL/GAIA dataset and an internal dataset for a production-grade data agent - show that this framework (a) provides a systematic way to cover a broad range of agent failures, including all agent errors on the TRAIL/GAIA benchmark dataset; (b) supports LLM-judges that exhibit strong agreement with human annotation, covering 80% to over 95% errors; and (c) localizes errors with 86% agreement to enable targeted improvement of agent performance.