skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: FairBatch: Batch Selection for Model Fairness
Training a fair machine learning model is essential to prevent demographic disparity. Existing techniques for improving model fairness require broad changes in either data preprocessing or model training, rendering themselves difficult-to-adopt for potentially already complex machine learning systems. We address this problem via the lens of bilevel optimization. While keeping the standard training algorithm as an inner optimizer, we incorporate an outer optimizer so as to equip the inner problem with an additional functionality: Adaptively selecting minibatch sizes for the purpose of improving model fairness. Our batch selection algorithm, which we call FairBatch, implements this optimization and supports prominent fairness measures: equal opportunity, equalized odds, and demographic parity. FairBatch comes with a significant implementation benefit -- it does not require any modification to data preprocessing or model training. For instance, a single-line change of PyTorch code for replacing batch selection part of model training suffices to employ FairBatch. Our experiments conducted both on synthetic and benchmark real data demonstrate that FairBatch can provide such functionalities while achieving comparable (or even greater) performances against the state of the arts. Furthermore, FairBatch can readily improve fairness of any pre-trained model simply via fine-tuning. It is also compatible with existing batch selection techniques more » intended for different purposes, such as faster convergence, thus gracefully achieving multiple purposes. « less
Authors:
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
2003129
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10311451
Journal Name:
International Conference on Learning Representations
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ( , 9th International Conference on Learning Representations)
    Training a fair machine learning model is essential to prevent demographic disparity. Existing techniques for improving model fairness require broad changes in either data preprocessing or model training, rendering themselves difficult-to-adopt for potentially already complex machine learning systems. We address this problem via the lens of bilevel optimization. While keeping the standard training algorithm as an inner optimizer, we incorporate an outer optimizer so as to equip the inner problem with an additional functionality: Adaptively selecting minibatch sizes for the purpose of improving model fairness. Our batch selection algorithm, which we call FairBatch, implements this optimization and supports prominent fairness measures: equal opportunity, equalized odds, and demographic parity. FairBatch comes with a significant implementation benefit -- it does not require any modification to data preprocessing or model training. For instance, a single-line change of PyTorch code for replacing batch selection part of model training suffices to employ FairBatch. Our experiments conducted both on synthetic and benchmark real data demonstrate that FairBatch can provide such functionalities while achieving comparable (or even greater) performances against the state of the arts. Furthermore, FairBatch can readily improve fairness of any pre-trained model simply via fine-tuning. It is also compatible with existing batch selection techniquesmore »intended for different purposes, such as faster convergence, thus gracefully achieving multiple purposes.« less
  2. ; ; ; ( , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))
    Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , SIGMOD '19: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data)
    Statistical knowledge and domain expertise are key to extract actionable insights out of data, yet such skills rarely coexist together. In Machine Learning, high-quality results are only attainable via mindful data preprocessing, hyperparameter tuning and model selection. Domain experts are often overwhelmed by such complexity, de-facto inhibiting a wider adoption of ML techniques in other fields. Existing libraries that claim to solve this problem, still require well-trained practitioners. Those frameworks involve heavy data preparation steps and are often too slow for interactive feedback from the user, severely limiting the scope of such systems. In this paper we present Alpine Meadow, a first Interactive Automated Machine Learning tool. What makes our system unique is not only the focus on interactivity, but also the combined systemic and algorithmic design approach; on one hand we leverage ideas from query optimization, on the other we devise novel selection and pruning strategies combining cost-based Multi-Armed Bandits and Bayesian Optimization. We evaluate our system on over 300 datasets and compare against other AutoML tools, including the current NIPS winner, as well as expert solutions. Not only is Alpine Meadow able to significantly outperform the other AutoML systems while --- in contrast to the other systems ---more »providing interactive latencies, but also outperforms in 80% of the cases expert solutions over data sets we have never seen before.« less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment)
    Recently there has been significant interest in using machine learning to improve the accuracy of cardinality estimation. This work has focused on improving average estimation error, but not all estimates matter equally for downstream tasks like query optimization. Since learned models inevitably make mistakes, the goal should be to improve the estimates that make the biggest difference to an optimizer. We introduce a new loss function, Flow-Loss, for learning cardinality estimation models. Flow-Loss approximates the optimizer's cost model and search algorithm with analytical functions, which it uses to optimize explicitly for better query plans. At the heart of Flow-Loss is a reduction of query optimization to a flow routing problem on a certain "plan graph", in which different paths correspond to different query plans. To evaluate our approach, we introduce the Cardinality Estimation Benchmark (CEB) which contains the ground truth cardinalities for sub-plans of over 16 K queries from 21 templates with up to 15 joins. We show that across different architectures and databases, a model trained with Flow-Loss improves the plan costs and query runtimes despite having worse estimation accuracy than a model trained with Q-Error. When the test set queries closely match the training queries, models trained withmore »both loss functions perform well. However, the Q-Error-trained model degrades significantly when evaluated on slightly different queries (e.g., similar but unseen query templates), while the Flow-Loss-trained model generalizes better to such situations, achieving 4 -- 8× better 99th percentile runtimes on unseen templates with the same model architecture and training data.« less
  5. ; ; ; ; ( , ACM Transactions on Graphics)
    Tasks across diverse application domains can be posed as large-scale optimization problems, these include graphics, vision, machine learning, imaging, health, scheduling, planning, and energy system forecasting. Independently of the application domain, proximal algorithms have emerged as a formal optimization method that successfully solves a wide array of existing problems, often exploiting problem-specific structures in the optimization. Although model-based formal optimization provides a principled approach to problem modeling with convergence guarantees, at first glance, this seems to be at odds with black-box deep learning methods. A recent line of work shows that, when combined with learning-based ingredients, model-based optimization methods are effective, interpretable, and allow for generalization to a wide spectrum of applications with little or no extra training data. However, experimenting with such hybrid approaches for different tasks by hand requires domain expertise in both proximal optimization and deep learning, which is often error-prone and time-consuming. Moreover, naively unrolling these iterative methods produces lengthy compute graphs, which when differentiated via autograd techniques results in exploding memory consumption, making batch-based training challenging. In this work, we introduce ∇-Prox, a domain-specific modeling language and compiler for large-scale optimization problems using differentiable proximal algorithms. ∇-Prox allows users to specify optimization objective functions ofmore »unknowns concisely at a high level, and intelligently compiles the problem into compute and memory-efficient differentiable solvers. One of the core features of ∇-Prox is its full differentiability, which supports hybrid model- and learning-based solvers integrating proximal optimization with neural network pipelines. Example applications of this methodology include learning-based priors and/or sample-dependent inner-loop optimization schedulers, learned with deep equilibrium learning or deep reinforcement learning. With a few lines of code, we show ∇-Prox can generate performant solvers for a range of image optimization problems, including end-to-end computational optics, image deraining, and compressive magnetic resonance imaging. We also demonstrate ∇-Prox can be used in a completely orthogonal application domain of energy system planning, an essential task in the energy crisis and the clean energy transition, where it outperforms state-of-the-art CVXPY and commercial Gurobi solvers.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email