Parikshit Gopalan

Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu, Michael P. Kim et al.

We present a new perspective on loss minimization and the recent notion of Omniprediction through the lens of Outcome Indistingusihability. For a collection of losses and hypothesis class, omniprediction requires that a predictor provide a loss-minimization guarantee simultaneously for every loss in the collection compared to the best (loss-specific) hypothesis in the class. We present a generic template to learn predictors satisfying a guarantee we call Loss Outcome Indistinguishability. For a set of statistical tests--based on a collection of losses and hypothesis class--a predictor is Loss OI if it is indistinguishable (according to the tests) from Nature's true probabilities over outcomes. By design, Loss OI implies omniprediction in a direct and intuitive manner. We simplify Loss OI further, decomposing it into a calibration condition plus multiaccuracy for a class of functions derived from the loss and hypothesis classes. By careful analysis of this class, we give efficient constructions of omnipredictors for interesting classes of loss functions, including non-convex losses. This decomposition highlights the utility of a new multi-group fairness notion that we call calibrated multiaccuracy, which lies in between multiaccuracy and multicalibration. We show that calibrated multiaccuracy implies Loss OI for the important set of convex losses arising from Generalized Linear Models, without requiring full multicalibration. For such losses, we show an equivalence between our computational notion of Loss OI and a geometric notion of indistinguishability, formulated as Pythagorean theorems in the associated Bregman divergence. We give an efficient algorithm for calibrated multiaccuracy with computational complexity comparable to that of multiaccuracy. In all, calibrated multiaccuracy offers an interesting tradeoff point between efficiency and generality in the omniprediction landscape.

Parikshit Gopalan, Michael P. Kim, Omer Reingold

We introduce and study Swap Agnostic Learning. The problem can be phrased as a game between a predictor and an adversary: first, the predictor selects a hypothesis $h$; then, the adversary plays in response, and for each level set of the predictor $\{x \in \mathcal{X} : h(x) = v\}$ selects a (different) loss-minimizing hypothesis $c_v \in \mathcal{C}$; the predictor wins if $h$ competes with the adaptive adversary's loss. Despite the strength of the adversary, we demonstrate the feasibility Swap Agnostic Learning for any convex loss. Somewhat surprisingly, the result follows through an investigation into the connections between Omniprediction and Multicalibration. Omniprediction is a new notion of optimality for predictors that strengthtens classical notions such as agnostic learning. It asks for loss minimization guarantees (relative to a hypothesis class) that apply not just for a specific loss function, but for any loss belonging to a rich family of losses. A recent line of work shows that omniprediction is implied by multicalibration and related multi-group fairness notions. This unexpected connection raises the question: is multi-group fairness necessary for omniprediction? Our work gives the first affirmative answer to this question. We establish an equivalence between swap variants of omniprediction and multicalibration and swap agnostic learning. Further, swap multicalibration is essentially equivalent to the standard notion of multicalibration, so existing learning algorithms can be used to achieve any of the three notions. Building on this characterization, we paint a complete picture of the relationship between different variants of multi-group fairness, omniprediction, and Outcome Indistinguishability. This inquiry reveals a unified notion of OI that captures all existing notions of omniprediction and multicalibration.

Parikshit Gopalan, Konstantinos Stavropoulos, Kunal Talwar et al. · harvard

Recent work has highlighted the centrality of smooth calibration [Kakade and Foster, 2008] as a robust measure of calibration error. We generalize, unify, and extend previous results on smooth calibration, both as a robust calibration measure, and as a step towards omniprediction, which enables predictions with low regret for downstream decision makers seeking to optimize some proper loss unknown to the predictor. We present a new omniprediction guarantee for smoothly calibrated predictors, for the class of all bounded proper losses. We smooth the predictor by adding some noise to it, and compete against smoothed versions of any benchmark predictor on the space, where we add some noise to the predictor and then post-process it arbitrarily. The omniprediction error is bounded by the smooth calibration error of the predictor and the earth mover's distance from the benchmark. We exhibit instances showing that this dependence cannot, in general, be improved. We show how this unifies and extends prior results [Foster and Vohra, 1998; Hartline, Wu, and Yang, 2025] on omniprediction from smooth calibration. We present a crisp new characterization of smooth calibration in terms of the earth mover's distance to the closest perfectly calibrated joint distribution of predictions and labels. This also yields a simpler proof of the relation to the lower distance to calibration from [Blasiok, Gopalan, Hu, and Nakkiran, 2023]. We use this to show that the upper distance to calibration cannot be estimated within a quadratic factor with sample complexity independent of the support size of the predictions. This is in contrast to the distance to calibration, where the corresponding problem was known to be information-theoretically impossible: no finite number of samples suffice [Blasiok, Gopalan, Hu, and Nakkiran, 2023].

Jarosław Błasiok, Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu et al.

Multicalibration is a notion of fairness for predictors that requires them to provide calibrated predictions across a large set of protected groups. Multicalibration is known to be a distinct goal than loss minimization, even for simple predictors such as linear functions. In this work, we consider the setting where the protected groups can be represented by neural networks of size $k$, and the predictors are neural networks of size $n > k$. We show that minimizing the squared loss over all neural nets of size $n$ implies multicalibration for all but a bounded number of unlucky values of $n$. We also give evidence that our bound on the number of unlucky values is tight, given our proof technique. Previously, results of the flavor that loss minimization yields multicalibration were known only for predictors that were near the ground truth, hence were rather limited in applicability. Unlike these, our results rely on the expressivity of neural nets and utilize the representation of the predictor.

Parikshit Gopalan, Michael P. Kim, Mihir Singhal et al.

Introduced as a notion of algorithmic fairness, multicalibration has proved to be a powerful and versatile concept with implications far beyond its original intent. This stringent notion -- that predictions be well-calibrated across a rich class of intersecting subpopulations -- provides its strong guarantees at a cost: the computational and sample complexity of learning multicalibrated predictors are high, and grow exponentially with the number of class labels. In contrast, the relaxed notion of multiaccuracy can be achieved more efficiently, yet many of the most desirable properties of multicalibration cannot be guaranteed assuming multiaccuracy alone. This tension raises a key question: Can we learn predictors with multicalibration-style guarantees at a cost commensurate with multiaccuracy? In this work, we define and initiate the study of Low-Degree Multicalibration. Low-Degree Multicalibration defines a hierarchy of increasingly-powerful multi-group fairness notions that spans multiaccuracy and the original formulation of multicalibration at the extremes. Our main technical contribution demonstrates that key properties of multicalibration, related to fairness and accuracy, actually manifest as low-degree properties. Importantly, we show that low-degree multicalibration can be significantly more efficient than full multicalibration. In the multi-class setting, the sample complexity to achieve low-degree multicalibration improves exponentially (in the number of classes) over full multicalibration. Our work presents compelling evidence that low-degree multicalibration represents a sweet spot, pairing computational and sample efficiency with strong fairness and accuracy guarantees.

Jarosław Błasiok, Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu et al.

We study the fundamental question of how to define and measure the distance from calibration for probabilistic predictors. While the notion of perfect calibration is well-understood, there is no consensus on how to quantify the distance from perfect calibration. Numerous calibration measures have been proposed in the literature, but it is unclear how they compare to each other, and many popular measures such as Expected Calibration Error (ECE) fail to satisfy basic properties like continuity. We present a rigorous framework for analyzing calibration measures, inspired by the literature on property testing. We propose a ground-truth notion of distance from calibration: the $\ell_1$ distance to the nearest perfectly calibrated predictor. We define a consistent calibration measure as one that is polynomially related to this distance. Applying our framework, we identify three calibration measures that are consistent and can be estimated efficiently: smooth calibration, interval calibration, and Laplace kernel calibration. The former two give quadratic approximations to the ground truth distance, which we show is information-theoretically optimal in a natural model for measuring calibration which we term the prediction-only access model. Our work thus establishes fundamental lower and upper bounds on measuring the distance to calibration, and also provides theoretical justification for preferring certain metrics (like Laplace kernel calibration) in practice.

Aravind Gollakota, Parikshit Gopalan, Adam R. Klivans et al.

We give the first result for agnostically learning Single-Index Models (SIMs) with arbitrary monotone and Lipschitz activations. All prior work either held only in the realizable setting or required the activation to be known. Moreover, we only require the marginal to have bounded second moments, whereas all prior work required stronger distributional assumptions (such as anticoncentration or boundedness). Our algorithm is based on recent work by [GHK$^+$23] on omniprediction using predictors satisfying calibrated multiaccuracy. Our analysis is simple and relies on the relationship between Bregman divergences (or matching losses) and $\ell_p$ distances. We also provide new guarantees for standard algorithms like GLMtron and logistic regression in the agnostic setting.

Pratiksha Thaker, Mihai Budiu, Parikshit Gopalan et al.

Data exploration systems that provide differential privacy must manage a privacy budget that measures the amount of privacy lost across multiple queries. One effective strategy to manage the privacy budget is to compute a one-time private synopsis of the data, to which users can make an unlimited number of queries. However, existing systems using synopses are built for offline use cases, where a set of queries is known ahead of time and the system carefully optimizes a synopsis for it. The synopses that these systems build are costly to compute and may also be costly to store. We introduce Overlook, a system that enables private data exploration at interactive latencies for both data analysts and data curators. The key idea in Overlook is a virtual synopsis that can be evaluated incrementally, without extra space storage or expensive precomputation. Overlook simply executes queries using an existing engine, such as a SQL DBMS, and adds noise to their results. Because Overlook's synopses do not require costly precomputation or storage, data curators can also use Overlook to explore the impact of privacy parameters interactively. Overlook offers a rich visual query interface based on the open source Hillview system. Overlook achieves accuracy comparable to existing synopsis-based systems, while offering better performance and removing the need for extra storage.

Charlotte Peale, Siddartha Devic, Parikshit Gopalan et al.

A key strategy for balancing performance and cost in modern machine learning systems is to dynamically route queries to either a low-cost model or a more expensive oracle (such as a large pretrained model or human expert), an approach known as model routing. In this work we present a new uncertainty-aware router that (1) avoids unnecessary oracle calls on inherently ambiguous queries, and (2) adapts dynamically to different loss functions and cost parameters through simple hyperparameter changes, without retraining. Our method, applicable to any classification setting where multiple independent annotations per input are available, is based on decomposing total uncertainty into irreducible and reducible components using higher-order predictors [Ahdritz et al., 2025]. This enables a unified approach to both routing and abstention: predict with the weak model when uncertainty is low, route to the oracle when reducible uncertainty is high, and abstain when irreducible uncertainty is high. Our router comes with strong theoretical guarantees bounding regret relative to optimal task-specific routers. We conduct experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets that demonstrate the benefits of our approach in suitable regimes -- in particular, whenever reducible and irreducible uncertainty are not too correlated.

Yu-Neng Chuang, Prathusha Kameswara Sarma, Parikshit Gopalan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on several tasks and are increasingly deployed in real-world applications. However, especially in high-stakes settings, it becomes vital to know when the output of an LLM may be unreliable. Depending on whether an answer is trustworthy, a system can then choose to route the question to another expert, or otherwise fall back on a safe default behavior. In this work, we study the extent to which LLMs can reliably indicate confidence in their answers, and how this notion of confidence can translate into downstream accuracy gains. We propose Self-Reflection with Error-based Feedback (Self-REF), a lightweight training strategy to teach LLMs to express confidence in whether their answers are correct in a reliable manner. Self-REF introduces confidence tokens into the LLM, from which a confidence score can be extracted. Compared to conventional approaches such as verbalizing confidence and examining token probabilities, we demonstrate empirically that confidence tokens show significant improvements in downstream routing and rejection learning tasks.

Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu, Guy N. Rothblum

Consider a multi-class labelling problem, where the labels can take values in $[k]$, and a predictor predicts a distribution over the labels. In this work, we study the following foundational question: Are there notions of multi-class calibration that give strong guarantees of meaningful predictions and can be achieved in time and sample complexities polynomial in $k$? Prior notions of calibration exhibit a tradeoff between computational efficiency and expressivity: they either suffer from having sample complexity exponential in $k$, or needing to solve computationally intractable problems, or give rather weak guarantees. Our main contribution is a notion of calibration that achieves all these desiderata: we formulate a robust notion of projected smooth calibration for multi-class predictions, and give new recalibration algorithms for efficiently calibrating predictors under this definition with complexity polynomial in $k$. Projected smooth calibration gives strong guarantees for all downstream decision makers who want to use the predictor for binary classification problems of the form: does the label belong to a subset $T \subseteq [k]$: e.g. is this an image of an animal? It ensures that the probabilities predicted by summing the probabilities assigned to labels in $T$ are close to some perfectly calibrated binary predictor for that task. We also show that natural strengthenings of our definition are computationally hard to achieve: they run into information theoretic barriers or computational intractability. Underlying both our upper and lower bounds is a tight connection that we prove between multi-class calibration and the well-studied problem of agnostic learning in the (standard) binary prediction setting.

Sílvia Casacuberta, Parikshit Gopalan, Varun Kanade et al.

Multiaccuracy and multicalibration are multigroup fairness notions for prediction that have found numerous applications in learning and computational complexity. They can be achieved from a single learning primitive: weak agnostic learning. Here we investigate the power of multiaccuracy as a learning primitive, both with and without the additional assumption of calibration. We find that multiaccuracy in itself is rather weak, but that the addition of global calibration (this notion is called calibrated multiaccuracy) boosts its power substantially, enough to recover implications that were previously known only assuming the stronger notion of multicalibration. We give evidence that multiaccuracy might not be as powerful as standard weak agnostic learning, by showing that there is no way to post-process a multiaccurate predictor to get a weak learner, even assuming the best hypothesis has correlation $1/2$. Rather, we show that it yields a restricted form of weak agnostic learning, which requires some concept in the class to have correlation greater than $1/2$ with the labels. However, by also requiring the predictor to be calibrated, we recover not just weak, but strong agnostic learning. A similar picture emerges when we consider the derivation of hardcore measures from predictors satisfying multigroup fairness notions. On the one hand, while multiaccuracy only yields hardcore measures of density half the optimal, we show that (a weighted version of) calibrated multiaccuracy achieves optimal density. Our results yield new insights into the complementary roles played by multiaccuracy and calibration in each setting. They shed light on why multiaccuracy and global calibration, although not particularly powerful by themselves, together yield considerably stronger notions.

Gustaf Ahdritz, Aravind Gollakota, Parikshit Gopalan et al.

We give a principled method for decomposing the predictive uncertainty of a model into aleatoric and epistemic components with explicit semantics relating them to the real-world data distribution. While many works in the literature have proposed such decompositions, they lack the type of formal guarantees we provide. Our method is based on the new notion of higher-order calibration, which generalizes ordinary calibration to the setting of higher-order predictors that predict mixtures over label distributions at every point. We show how to measure as well as achieve higher-order calibration using access to $k$-snapshots, namely examples where each point has $k$ independent conditional labels. Under higher-order calibration, the estimated aleatoric uncertainty at a point is guaranteed to match the real-world aleatoric uncertainty averaged over all points where the prediction is made. To our knowledge, this is the first formal guarantee of this type that places no assumptions whatsoever on the real-world data distribution. Importantly, higher-order calibration is also applicable to existing higher-order predictors such as Bayesian and ensemble models and provides a natural evaluation metric for such models. We demonstrate through experiments that our method produces meaningful uncertainty decompositions for image classification.

Aravind Gollakota, Parikshit Gopalan, Aayush Karan et al.

Given a predictor and a loss function, how well can we predict the loss that the predictor will incur on an input? This is the problem of loss prediction, a key computational task associated with uncertainty estimation for a predictor. In a classification setting, a predictor will typically predict a distribution over labels and hence have its own estimate of the loss that it will incur, given by the entropy of the predicted distribution. Should we trust this estimate? In other words, when does the predictor know what it knows and what it does not know? In this work we study the theoretical foundations of loss prediction. Our main contribution is to establish tight connections between nontrivial loss prediction and certain forms of multicalibration, a multigroup fairness notion that asks for calibrated predictions across computationally identifiable subgroups. Formally, we show that a loss predictor that is able to improve on the self-estimate of a predictor yields a witness to a failure of multicalibration, and vice versa. This has the implication that nontrivial loss prediction is in effect no easier or harder than auditing for multicalibration. We support our theoretical results with experiments that show a robust positive correlation between the multicalibration error of a predictor and the efficacy of training a loss predictor.

Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu

Calibration is a classical notion from the forecasting literature which aims to address the question: how should predicted probabilities be interpreted? In a world where we only get to observe (discrete) outcomes, how should we evaluate a predictor that hypothesizes (continuous) probabilities over possible outcomes? The study of calibration has seen a surge of recent interest, given the ubiquity of probabilistic predictions in machine learning. This survey describes recent work on the foundational questions of how to define and measure calibration error, and what these measures mean for downstream decision makers who wish to use the predictions to make decisions. A unifying viewpoint that emerges is that of calibration as a form of indistinguishability, between the world hypothesized by the predictor and the real world (governed by nature or the Bayes optimal predictor). In this view, various calibration measures quantify the extent to which the two worlds can be told apart by certain classes of distinguishers or statistical measures.

Parikshit Gopalan, Konstantinos Stavropoulos, Kunal Talwar et al. · harvard

A decision-theoretic characterization of perfect calibration is that an agent seeking to minimize a proper loss in expectation cannot improve their outcome by post-processing a perfectly calibrated predictor. Hu and Wu (FOCS'24) use this to define an approximate calibration measure called calibration decision loss ($\mathsf{CDL}$), which measures the maximal improvement achievable by any post-processing over any proper loss. Unfortunately, $\mathsf{CDL}$ turns out to be intractable to even weakly approximate in the offline setting, given black-box access to the predictions and labels. We suggest circumventing this by restricting attention to structured families of post-processing functions $K$. We define the calibration decision loss relative to $K$, denoted $\mathsf{CDL}_K$ where we consider all proper losses but restrict post-processings to a structured family $K$. We develop a comprehensive theory of when $\mathsf{CDL}_K$ is information-theoretically and computationally tractable, and use it to prove both upper and lower bounds for natural classes $K$. In addition to introducing new definitions and algorithmic techniques to the theory of calibration for decision making, our results give rigorous guarantees for some widely used recalibration procedures in machine learning.

Parikshit Gopalan, Princewill Okoroafor, Prasad Raghavendra et al.

Consider the supervised learning setting where the goal is to learn to predict labels $\mathbf y$ given points $\mathbf x$ from a distribution. An \textit{omnipredictor} for a class $\mathcal L$ of loss functions and a class $\mathcal C$ of hypotheses is a predictor whose predictions incur less expected loss than the best hypothesis in $\mathcal C$ for every loss in $\mathcal L$. Since the work of [GKR+21] that introduced the notion, there has been a large body of work in the setting of binary labels where $\mathbf y \in \{0, 1\}$, but much less is known about the regression setting where $\mathbf y \in [0,1]$ can be continuous. Our main conceptual contribution is the notion of \textit{sufficient statistics} for loss minimization over a family of loss functions: these are a set of statistics about a distribution such that knowing them allows one to take actions that minimize the expected loss for any loss in the family. The notion of sufficient statistics relates directly to the approximate rank of the family of loss functions. Our key technical contribution is a bound of $O(1/\varepsilon^{2/3})$ on the $ε$-approximate rank of convex, Lipschitz functions on the interval $[0,1]$, which we show is tight up to a factor of $\mathrm{polylog} (1/ε)$. This yields improved runtimes for learning omnipredictors for the class of all convex, Lipschitz loss functions under weak learnability assumptions about the class $\mathcal C$. We also give efficient omnipredictors when the loss families have low-degree polynomial approximations, or arise from generalized linear models (GLMs). This translation from sufficient statistics to faster omnipredictors is made possible by lifting the technique of loss outcome indistinguishability introduced by [GKH+23] for Boolean labels to the regression setting.

Jarosław Błasiok, Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu et al.

Optimizing proper loss functions is popularly believed to yield predictors with good calibration properties; the intuition being that for such losses, the global optimum is to predict the ground-truth probabilities, which is indeed calibrated. However, typical machine learning models are trained to approximately minimize loss over restricted families of predictors, that are unlikely to contain the ground truth. Under what circumstances does optimizing proper loss over a restricted family yield calibrated models? What precise calibration guarantees does it give? In this work, we provide a rigorous answer to these questions. We replace the global optimality with a local optimality condition stipulating that the (proper) loss of the predictor cannot be reduced much by post-processing its predictions with a certain family of Lipschitz functions. We show that any predictor with this local optimality satisfies smooth calibration as defined in Kakade-Foster (2008), Błasiok et al. (2023). Local optimality is plausibly satisfied by well-trained DNNs, which suggests an explanation for why they are calibrated from proper loss minimization alone. Finally, we show that the connection between local optimality and calibration error goes both ways: nearly calibrated predictors are also nearly locally optimal.

Parikshit Gopalan, Nina Narodytska, Omer Reingold et al.

Estimating the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between two distributions given samples from them is well-studied in machine learning and information theory. Motivated by considerations of multi-group fairness, we seek KL divergence estimates that accurately reflect the contributions of sub-populations to the overall divergence. We model the sub-populations coming from a rich (possibly infinite) family $\mathcal{C}$ of overlapping subsets of the domain. We propose the notion of multi-group attribution for $\mathcal{C}$, which requires that the estimated divergence conditioned on every sub-population in $\mathcal{C}$ satisfies some natural accuracy and fairness desiderata, such as ensuring that sub-populations where the model predicts significant divergence do diverge significantly in the two distributions. Our main technical contribution is to show that multi-group attribution can be derived from the recently introduced notion of multi-calibration for importance weights [HKRR18, GRSW21]. We provide experimental evidence to support our theoretical results, and show that multi-group attribution provides better KL divergence estimates when conditioned on sub-populations than other popular algorithms.

Parikshit Gopalan, Adam Tauman Kalai, Omer Reingold et al.

Loss minimization is a dominant paradigm in machine learning, where a predictor is trained to minimize some loss function that depends on an uncertain event (e.g., "will it rain tomorrow?''). Different loss functions imply different learning algorithms and, at times, very different predictors. While widespread and appealing, a clear drawback of this approach is that the loss function may not be known at the time of learning, requiring the algorithm to use a best-guess loss function. We suggest a rigorous new paradigm for loss minimization in machine learning where the loss function can be ignored at the time of learning and only be taken into account when deciding an action. We introduce the notion of an (${\mathcal{L}},\mathcal{C}$)-omnipredictor, which could be used to optimize any loss in a family ${\mathcal{L}}$. Once the loss function is set, the outputs of the predictor can be post-processed (a simple univariate data-independent transformation of individual predictions) to do well compared with any hypothesis from the class $\mathcal{C}$. The post processing is essentially what one would perform if the outputs of the predictor were true probabilities of the uncertain events. In a sense, omnipredictors extract all the predictive power from the class $\mathcal{C}$, irrespective of the loss function in $\mathcal{L}$. We show that such "loss-oblivious'' learning is feasible through a connection to multicalibration, a notion introduced in the context of algorithmic fairness. In addition, we show how multicalibration can be viewed as a solution concept for agnostic boosting, shedding new light on past results. Finally, we transfer our insights back to the context of algorithmic fairness by providing omnipredictors for multi-group loss minimization.

Parikshit Gopalan, Omer Reingold, Vatsal Sharan et al.

The ratio between the probability that two distributions $R$ and $P$ give to points $x$ are known as importance weights or propensity scores and play a fundamental role in many different fields, most notably, statistics and machine learning. Among its applications, importance weights are central to domain adaptation, anomaly detection, and estimations of various divergences such as the KL divergence. We consider the common setting where $R$ and $P$ are only given through samples from each distribution. The vast literature on estimating importance weights is either heuristic, or makes strong assumptions about $R$ and $P$ or on the importance weights themselves. In this paper, we explore a computational perspective to the estimation of importance weights, which factors in the limitations and possibilities obtainable with bounded computational resources. We significantly strengthen previous work that use the MaxEntropy approach, that define the importance weights based on a distribution $Q$ closest to $P$, that looks the same as $R$ on every set $C \in \mathcal{C}$, where $\mathcal{C}$ may be a huge collection of sets. We show that the MaxEntropy approach may fail to assign high average scores to sets $C \in \mathcal{C}$, even when the average of ground truth weights for the set is evidently large. We similarly show that it may overestimate the average scores to sets $C \in \mathcal{C}$. We therefore formulate Sandwiching bounds as a notion of set-wise accuracy for importance weights. We study these bounds to show that they capture natural completeness and soundness requirements from the weights. We present an efficient algorithm that under standard learnability assumptions computes weights which satisfy these bounds. Our techniques rely on a new notion of multicalibrated partitions of the domain of the distributions, which appear to be useful objects in their own right.

Parikshit Gopalan, Vatsal Sharan, Udi Wieder

We consider the problem of detecting anomalies in a large dataset. We propose a framework called Partial Identification which captures the intuition that anomalies are easy to distinguish from the overwhelming majority of points by relatively few attribute values. Formalizing this intuition, we propose a geometric anomaly measure for a point that we call PIDScore, which measures the minimum density of data points over all subcubes containing the point. We present PIDForest: a random forest based algorithm that finds anomalies based on this definition. We show that it performs favorably in comparison to several popular anomaly detection methods, across a broad range of benchmarks. PIDForest also provides a succinct explanation for why a point is labelled anomalous, by providing a set of features and ranges for them which are relatively uncommon in the dataset.

Vatsal Sharan, Parikshit Gopalan, Udi Wieder

We consider the problem of finding anomalies in high-dimensional data using popular PCA based anomaly scores. The naive algorithms for computing these scores explicitly compute the PCA of the covariance matrix which uses space quadratic in the dimensionality of the data. We give the first streaming algorithms that use space that is linear or sublinear in the dimension. We prove general results showing that \emph{any} sketch of a matrix that satisfies a certain operator norm guarantee can be used to approximate these scores. We instantiate these results with powerful matrix sketching techniques such as Frequent Directions and random projections to derive efficient and practical algorithms for these problems, which we validate over real-world data sets. Our main technical contribution is to prove matrix perturbation inequalities for operators arising in the computation of these measures.