Search for: All records

It is well understood that a system built from individually fair components may not itself be individually fair. In this work, we investigate individual fairness under pipeline composition. Pipelines differ from ordinary sequential or repeated composition in that individuals may drop out at any stage, and classification in subsequent stages may depend on the remaining “cohort” of individuals. As an example, a company might hire a team for a new project and at a later point promote the highest performer on the team. Unlike other repeated classification settings, where the degree of unfairness degrades gracefully over multiple fair steps, the degree of unfairness in pipelines can be arbitrary, even in a pipeline with just two stages. Guided by a panoply of real-world examples, we provide a rigorous framework for evaluating different types of fairness guarantees for pipelines. We show that naïve auditing is unable to uncover systematic unfairness and that, in order to ensure fairness, some form of dependence must exist between the design of algorithms at different stages in the pipeline. Finally, we provide constructions that permit flexibility at later stages, meaning that there is no need to lock in the entire pipeline at the time that the early stage is constructed. 

Robust optimization has been widely used in nowadays data science, especially in adversarial training. However, little research has been done to quantify how robust optimization changes the optimizers and the prediction losses comparing to standard training. In this paper, inspired by the influence function in robust statistics, we introduce the Adversarial Influence Function (AIF) as a tool to investigate the solution produced by robust optimization. The proposed AIF enjoys a closed-form and can be calculated efficiently. To illustrate the usage of AIF, we apply it to study model sensitivity — a quantity defined to capture the change of prediction losses on the natural data after implementing robust optimization. We use AIF to analyze how model complexity and randomized smoothing affect the model sensitivity with respect to specific models. We further derive AIF for kernel regressions, with a particular application to neural tangent kernels, and experimentally demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed AIF. Lastly, the theories of AIF will be extended to distributional robust optimization. 

It is well understood that classification algorithms, for example, for deciding on loan applications, cannot be evaluated for fairness without taking context into account. We examine what can be learned from a fairness oracle equipped with an underlying understanding of “true” fairness. The oracle takes as input a (context, classifier) pair satisfying an arbitrary fairness definition, and accepts or rejects the pair according to whether the classifier satisfies the underlying fairness truth. Our principal conceptual result is an extraction procedure that learns the underlying truth; moreover, the procedure can learn an approximation to this truth given access to a weak form of the oracle. Since every “truly fair” classifier induces a coarse metric, in which those receiving the same decision are at distance zero from one another and those receiving different decisions are at distance one, this extraction process provides the basis for ensuring a rough form of metric fairness, also known as individual fairness. Our principal technical result is a higher fidelity extractor under a mild technical constraint on the weak oracle’s conception of fairness. Our framework permits the scenario in which many classifiers, with differing outcomes, may all be considered fair. Our results have implications for interpretablity – a highly desired but poorly defined property of classification systems that endeavors to permit a human arbiter to reject classifiers deemed to be“unfair” or illegitimately derived. 

Algorithmic fairness, and in particular the fairness of scoring and classification algorithms, has become a topic of increasing social concern and has recently witnessed an explosion of research in theoretical computer science, machine learning, statistics, the social sciences, and law. Much of the literature considers the case of a single classifier (or scoring function) used once, in isolation. In this work, we initiate the study of the fairness properties of systems composed of algorithms that are fair in isolation; that is, we study fairness under composition. We identify pitfalls of naïve composition and give general constructions for fair composition, demonstrating both that classifiers that are fair in isolation do not necessarily compose into fair systems and also that seemingly unfair components may be carefully combined to construct fair systems. We focus primarily on the individual fairness setting proposed in [Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, Zemel, 2011], but also extend our results to a large class of group fairness definitions popular in the recent literature, exhibiting several cases in which group fairness definitions give misleading signals under composition. 

Ensuring differential privacy of models learned from sensitive user data is an important goal that has been studied extensively in recent years. It is now known that for some basic learning problems, especially those involving high-dimensional data, producing an accurate private model requires much more data than learning without privacy. At the same time, in many applications it is not necessary to expose the model itself. Instead users may be allowed to query the prediction model on their inputs only through an appropriate interface. Here we formulate the problem of ensuring privacy of individual predictions and investigate the overheads required to achieve it in several standard models of classification and regression. We first describe a simple baseline approach based on training several models on disjoint subsets of data and using standard private aggregation techniques to predict. We show that this approach has nearly optimal sample complexity for (realizable) PAC learning of any class of Boolean functions. At the same time, without strong assumptions on the data distribution, the aggregation step introduces a substantial overhead. We demonstrate that this overhead can be avoided for the well-studied class of thresholds on a line and for a number of standard settings of convex regression. The analysis of our algorithm for learning thresholds relies crucially on strong generalization guarantees that we establish for all differentially private prediction algorithms.