Search for: All records

We develop fast distribution-free conformal prediction algorithms for obtaining multivalid coverage on exchangeable data in the batch setting. Multivalid coverage guarantees are stronger than marginal coverage guarantees in two ways: (1) They hold even conditional on group membership---that is, the target coverage level holds conditionally on membership in each of an arbitrary (potentially intersecting) group in a finite collection of regions in the feature space. (2) They hold even conditional on the value of the threshold used to produce the prediction set on a given example. In fact multivalid coverage guarantees hold even when conditioning on group membership and threshold value simultaneously. We give two algorithms: both take as input an arbitrary non-conformity score and an arbitrary collection of possibly intersecting groups , and then can equip arbitrary black-box predictors with prediction sets. Our first algorithm is a direct extension of quantile regression, needs to solve only a single convex minimization problem, and produces an estimator which has group-conditional guarantees for each group in . Our second algorithm is iterative, and gives the full guarantees of multivalid conformal prediction: prediction sets that are valid conditionally both on group membership and non-conformity threshold. We evaluate the performance of both of our algorithms in an extensive set of experiments. 

We give a simple, generic conformal prediction method for sequential prediction that achieves target empirical coverage guarantees against adversarially chosen data. It is computationally lightweight -- comparable to split conformal prediction -- but does not require having a held-out validation set, and so all data can be used for training models from which to derive a conformal score. It gives stronger than marginal coverage guarantees in two ways. First, it gives threshold calibrated prediction sets that have correct empirical coverage even conditional on the threshold used to form the prediction set from the conformal score. Second, the user can specify an arbitrary collection of subsets of the feature space -- possibly intersecting -- and the coverage guarantees also hold conditional on membership in each of these subsets. We call our algorithm MVP, short for MultiValid Prediction. We give both theory and an extensive set of empirical evaluations. 

We show how to achieve the notion of "multicalibration" from Hébert-Johnson et al. [2018] not just for means, but also for variances and other higher moments. Informally, it means that we can find regression functions which, given a data point, can make point predictions not just for the expectation of its label, but for higher moments of its label distribution as well-and those predictions match the true distribution quantities when averaged not just over the population as a whole, but also when averaged over an enormous number of finely defined subgroups. It yields a principled way to estimate the uncertainty of predictions on many different subgroups-and to diagnose potential sources of unfairness in the predictive power of features across subgroups. As an application, we show that our moment estimates can be used to derive marginal prediction intervals that are simultaneously valid as averaged over all of the (sufficiently large) subgroups for which moment multicalibration has been obtained. 

We consider settings in which the right notion of fairness is not captured by simple mathematical definitions (such as equality of error rates across groups), but might be more complex and nuanced and thus require elicitation from individual or collective stakeholders. We introduce a framework in which pairs of individuals can be identified as requiring (approximately) equal treatment under a learned model, or requiring ordered treatment such as "applicant Alice should be at least as likely to receive a loan as applicant Bob". We provide a provably convergent and oracle efficient algorithm for learning the most accurate model subject to the elicited fairness constraints, and prove generalization bounds for both accuracy and fairness. This algorithm can also combine the elicited constraints with traditional statistical fairness notions, thus "correcting" or modifying the latter by the former. We report preliminary findings of a behavioral study of our framework using human-subject fairness constraints elicited on the COMPAS criminal recidivism dataset. 

Settings such as lending and policing can be modeled by a centralized agent allocating a scarce resource (e.g. loans or police officers) amongst several groups, in order to maximize some objective (e.g. loans given that are repaid, or criminals that are apprehended). Often in such problems fairness is also a concern. One natural notion of fairness, based on general principles of equality of opportunity, asks that conditional on an individual being a candidate for the resource in question, the probability of actually receiving it is approximately independent of the individual’s group. For example, in lending this would mean that equally creditworthy individuals in different racial groups have roughly equal chances of receiving a loan. In policing it would mean that two individuals committing the same crime in different districts would have roughly equal chances of being arrested. In this paper, we formalize this general notion of fairness for allocation problems and investigate its algorithmic consequences. Our main technical results include an efficient learning algorithm that converges to an optimal fair allocation even when the allocator does not know the frequency of candidates (i.e. creditworthy individuals or criminals) in each group. This algorithm operates in a censored feedback model in which only the number of candidates who received the resource in a given allocation can be observed, rather than the true number of candidates in each group. This models the fact that we do not learn the creditworthiness of individuals we do not give loans to and do not learn about crimes committed if the police presence in a district is low.