ICLR 2023 Papers

Quantifying similarity between neural representations---e.g. hidden layer activation vectors---is a perennial problem in deep learning and neuroscience research. Existing methods compare deterministic responses (e.g. artificial networks that lack stochastic layers) or averaged responses (e.g., trial-averaged firing rates in biological data). However, these measures of _deterministic_ representational similarity ignore the scale and geometric structure of noise, both of which play important roles in neural computation. To rectify this, we generalize previously proposed shape metrics (Williams et al. 2021) to quantify differences in _stochastic_ representations. These new distances satisfy the triangle inequality, and thus can be used as a rigorous basis for many supervised and unsupervised analyses. Leveraging this novel framework, we find that the stochastic geometries of neurobiological representations of oriented visual gratings and naturalistic scenes respectively resemble untrained and trained deep network representations. Further, we are able to more accurately predict certain network attributes (e.g. training hyperparameters) from its position in stochastic (versus deterministic) shape space.

Large language models show improved downstream task performance when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness (independent of the final answer) is difficult without reliable methods for automatic evaluation. We simply do not know how often the stated reasoning steps actually support the final end task predictions. In this work, we present ROSCOE, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics. To evaluate ROSCOE against baseline metrics, we design a typology of reasoning errors and collect synthetic and human evaluation scores on commonly used reasoning datasets. In contrast with existing metrics, ROSCOE can measure semantic consistency, logicality, informativeness, fluency, and factuality — among other traits — by leveraging properties of step-by-step rationales. We empirically verify the strength of our metrics on five human annotated and six programmatically perturbed diagnostics datasets - covering a diverse set of tasks that require reasoning skills and show that ROSCOE can consistently outperform baseline metrics.

Tabular data is prevalent in many high-stakes domains, such as financial services or public policy. Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT) are popular in these settings due to their scalability, performance, and low training cost. While fairness in these domains is a foremost concern, existing in-processing Fair ML methods are either incompatible with GBDT, or incur in significant performance losses while taking considerably longer to train. We present FairGBM, a dual ascent learning framework for training GBDT under fairness constraints, with little to no impact on predictive performance when compared to unconstrained GBDT. Since observational fairness metrics are non-differentiable, we propose smooth convex error rate proxies for common fairness criteria, enabling gradient-based optimization using a ``proxy-Lagrangian'' formulation. Our implementation shows an order of magnitude speedup in training time relative to related work, a pivotal aspect to foster the widespread adoption of FairGBM by real-world practitioners.

Learning high-quality representation is important and essential for visual recognition. Unfortunately, traditional representation learning suffers from fairness issues since the model may learn information of sensitive attributes. Recently, a series of studies have been proposed to improve fairness by explicitly decorrelating target labels and sensitive attributes. Most of these methods, however, rely on the assumption that fully annotated labels on target variable and sensitive attributes are available, which is unrealistic due to the expensive annotation cost. In this paper, we investigate a novel and practical problem of Fair Unsupervised Representation Learning with Partially annotated Sensitive labels (FURL-PS). FURL-PS has two key challenges: 1) how to make full use of the samples that are not annotated with sensitive attributes; 2) how to eliminate bias in the dataset without target labels. To address these challenges, we propose a general Fairness-aware Contrastive Learning (FairCL) framework consisting of two stages. Firstly, we generate contrastive sample pairs, which share the same visual information apart from sensitive attributes, for each instance in the original dataset. In this way, we construct a balanced and unbiased dataset. Then, we execute fair contrastive learning by closing the distance between representations of contrastive sample pairs. Besides, we also propose an unsupervised way to balance the utility and fairness of learned representations by feature reweighting. Extensive experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of our method in terms of fairness and utility, even with very limited sensitive attributes and serious data bias.

We introduce an optimal transport-based model for learning a metric tensor from cross-sectional samples of evolving probability measures on a common Riemannian manifold. We neurally parametrize the metric as a spatially-varying matrix field and efficiently optimize our model's objective using a simple alternating scheme. Using this learned metric, we can non-linearly interpolate between probability measures and compute geodesics on the manifold. We show that metrics learned using our method improve the quality of trajectory inference on scRNA and bird migration data at the cost of little additional cross-sectional data.

Algorithmic fairness plays an increasingly critical role in machine learning research. Several group fairness notions and algorithms have been proposed. However, the fairness guarantee of existing fair classification methods mainly depend on specific data distributional assumptions, often requiring large sample sizes, and fairness could be violated when there is a modest number of samples, which is often the case in practice. In this paper, we propose FaiREE, a fair classification algorithm which can satisfy group fairness constraints with finite-sample and distribution-free theoretical guarantees. FaiREE can be adapted to satisfying various group fairness notions (e.g., Equality of Opportunity, Equalized Odds, Demographic Parity, etc.) and achieve the optimal accuracy. These theoretical guarantees are further supported by experiments on both synthetic and real data. FaiREE is shown to have favorable performance over state-of-the-art algorithms.

As machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly used in high-stakes applications, concerns have arisen that they may be biased against certain social groups. Although many approaches have been proposed to make ML models fair, they typically rely on the assumption that data distributions in training and deployment are identical. Unfortunately, this is commonly violated in practice and a model that is fair during training may lead to an unexpected outcome during its deployment. Although the problem of designing robust ML models under dataset shifts has been widely studied, most existing works focus only on the transfer of accuracy. In this paper, we study the transfer of both fairness and accuracy under domain generalization where the data at test time may be sampled from never-before-seen domains. We first develop theoretical bounds on the unfairness and expected loss at deployment, and then derive sufficient conditions under which fairness and accuracy can be perfectly transferred via invariant representation learning. Guided by this, we design a learning algorithm such that fair ML models learned with training data still have high fairness and accuracy when deployment environments change. Experiments on real-world data validate the proposed algorithm.

Post hoc auditing of model fairness suffers from potential drawbacks: (1) auditing may be highly sensitive to the test samples chosen; (2) the model and/or its training data may need to be shared with an auditor thereby breaking confidentiality. We address these issues by instead providing a certificate that demonstrates that the learning algorithm itself is fair, and hence, as a consequence, so too is the trained model. We introduce a method to provide a confidential proof of fairness for training, in the context of widely used decision trees, which we term Confidential-PROFITT. We propose novel fair decision tree learning algorithms along with customized zero-knowledge proof protocols to obtain a proof of fairness that can be audited by a third party. Using zero-knowledge proofs enables us to guarantee confidentiality of both the model and its training data. We show empirically that bounding the information gain of each node with respect to the sensitive attributes reduces the unfairness of the final tree. In extensive experiments on the COMPAS, Communities and Crime, Default Credit, and Adult datasets, we demonstrate that a company can use Confidential-PROFITT to certify the fairness of their decision tree to an auditor in less than 2 minutes, thus indicating the applicability of our approach. This is true for both the demographic parity and equalized odds definitions of fairness. Finally, we extend Confidential-PROFITT to apply to ensembles of trees.

Devising a fair classifier that does not discriminate against different groups is an important problem in machine learning. Although researchers have proposed various ways of defining group fairness, most of them only focused on the immediate fairness, ignoring the long-term impact of a fair classifier under the dynamic scenario where each individual can improve its feature over time. Such dynamic scenarios happen in real world, e.g., college admission and credit loaning, where each rejected sample makes effort to change its features to get accepted afterwards. In this dynamic setting, the long-term fairness should equalize the samples’ feature distribution across different groups after the rejected samples make some effort to improve. In order to promote long-term fairness, we propose a new fairness notion called Equal Improvability (EI), which equalizes the potential acceptance rate of the rejected samples across different groups assuming a bounded level of effort will be spent by each rejected sample. We analyze the properties of EI and its connections with existing fairness notions. To find a classifier that satisfies the EI requirement, we propose and study three different approaches that solve EI regularized optimization problems. Through experiments on both synthetic and real datasets, we demonstrate that the proposed EI-regularized algorithms encourage us to find a fair classifier in terms of EI. Finally, we provide experimental results on dynamic scenarios which highlight the advantages of our EI metric in achieving the long-term fairness. Codes are available in anonymous GitHub repository.

Learned classifiers should often possess certain invariance properties meant to encourage fairness, robustness, or out-of-distribution generalization. However, multiple recent works empirically demonstrate that common invariance-inducing regularizers are ineffective in the over-parameterized regime, in which classifiers perfectly fit (i.e. interpolate) the training data. This suggests that the phenomenon of ``benign overfitting," in which models generalize well despite interpolating, might not favorably extend to settings in which robustness or fairness are desirable. In this work, we provide a theoretical justification for these observations. We prove that---even in the simplest of settings---any interpolating learning rule (with an arbitrarily small margin) will not satisfy these invariance properties. We then propose and analyze an algorithm that---in the same setting---successfully learns a non-interpolating classifier that is provably invariant. We validate our theoretical observations on simulated data and the Waterbirds dataset.

Motivated by the interests of social network analysis and network-based recommendation systems, we consider a semi-supervised community detection problem, where the goal is to estimate the community label of a new node by leveraging on the network structure and partially observed community labels of existing nodes. We model the network with a degree-corrected stochastic block model, which allows for severe degree heterogeneity and potentially non-assortative communities. We propose a fast algorithm that computes a `structural similarity metric' between the new node and each of the $K$ communities, aggregating information in labeled and unlabeled data. The estimated label of the new node is equal to the value of $k$ that maximizes this similarity metric. Our method is computationally fast and compares favorably with existing semi-supervised algorithms on numerical performance. In theory, we derive explicit bounds for the misclassification error and show the efficiency of our method by comparing it with an ideal classifier. To our best knowledge, our results provide the first semi-supervised community detection algorithm with theoretical guarantees.

We show that participating in federated learning can be detrimental to group fairness. In fact, the bias of a few parties against under-represented groups (identified by sensitive attributes such as gender or race) can propagate through the network to all the parties in the network. We analyze and explain bias propagation in federated learning on naturally partitioned real-world datasets. Our analysis reveals that biased parties unintentionally yet stealthily encode their bias in a small number of model parameters, and throughout the training, they steadily increase the dependence of the global model on sensitive attributes. What is important to highlight is that the experienced bias in federated learning is higher than what parties would otherwise encounter in centralized training with a model trained on the union of all their data. This indicates that the bias is due to the algorithm. Our work calls for auditing group fairness in federated learning and designing learning algorithms that are robust to bias propagation.

We propose a new mechanism to augment a word vector embedding representation that offers improved bias removal while retaining the key information—resulting in improved interpretability of the representation. Rather than removing the information associated with a concept that may induce bias, our proposed method identifies two concept subspaces and makes them orthogonal. The resulting representation has these two concepts uncorrelated. Moreover, because they are orthogonal, one can simply apply a rotation on the basis of the representation so that the resulting subspace corresponds with coordinates. This explicit encoding of concepts to coordinates works because they have been made fully orthogonal, which previous approaches do not achieve. Furthermore, we show that this can be extended to multiple subspaces. As a result, one can choose a subset of concepts to be represented transparently and explicitly, while the others are retained in the mixed but extremely expressive format of the representation.

The pursuit of long-term fairness involves the interplay between decision-making and the underlying data generating process. In this paper, through causal modeling with a directed acyclic graph (DAG) on the decision-distribution interplay, we investigate the possibility of achieving long-term fairness from a dynamic perspective. We propose Tier Balancing, a technically more challenging but more natural notion to achieve in the context of long-term, dynamic fairness analysis. Different from previous fairness notions that are defined purely on observed variables, our notion goes one step further, capturing behind-the-scenes situation changes on the unobserved latent causal factors that directly carry out the influence from the current decision to the future data distribution. Under the specified dynamics, we prove that in general one cannot achieve the long-term fairness goal only through one-step interventions. Furthermore, in the effort of approaching long-term fairness, we consider the mission of "getting closer to" the long-term fairness goal and present possibility and impossibility results accordingly.

Errors in labels obtained via human annotation adversely affect a trained model's performance. Existing approaches propose ways to mitigate the effect of label error on a model's downstream accuracy, yet little is known about its impact on a model's group-based disparity metrics\footnote{Group-based disparity metrics like subgroup calibration, false positive rate, false negative rate, equalized odds, and equal opportunity are more often known, colloquially, as \textit{fairness metrics} in the literature. We use the term group-based disparity metrics in this work.}. Here we study the effect of label error on a model's group-based disparity metrics like group calibration. We empirically characterize how varying levels of label error, in both training and test data, affect these disparity metrics. We find that group calibration and other metrics are sensitive to train-time and test-time label error---particularly for minority groups. For the same level of label error, the percentage change in group calibration error for the minority group is on average 1.5 times larger than the change for the majority group. Towards mitigating the impact of training-time label error, we present an approach to estimate how changing a single training input's label affects a model's group disparity metric on a test set. We empirically assess the proposed approach on a variety of datasets and find a 10-40\% improvement, compared to alternative approaches, in identifying training inputs that improve a model's disparity metric. The proposed approach can help surface training inputs that may need to be corrected for improving a model's group-based disparity metrics.

Many existing group fairness-aware training methods aim to achieve the group fairness by either re-weighting underrepresented groups based on certain rules or using weakly approximated surrogates for the fairness metrics in the objective as regularization terms. Although each of the learning schemes has its own strength in terms of applicability or performance, respectively, it is difficult for any method in the either category to be considered as a gold standard since their successful performances are typically limited to specific cases. To that end, we propose a principled method, dubbed as FairDRO, which unifies the two learning schemes by incorporating a well-justified group fairness metric into the training objective using a classwise distributionally robust optimization (DRO) framework. We then develop an iterative optimization algorithm that minimizes the resulting objective by automatically producing the correct re-weights for each group. Our experiments show that FairDRO is scalable and easily adaptable to diverse applications, and consistently achieves the state-of-the-art performance on several benchmark datasets in terms of the accuracy-fairness trade-off, compared to recent strong baselines.

We introduce an efficient algorithmic framework for learning sparse group models formulated as the natural convex relaxation of a cardinality-constrained program with Boolean variables. We provide theoretical techniques to characterize the equivalent condition when the relaxation achieves the exact integral optimal solution, as well as a rounding algorithm to produce a feasible integral solution once the optimal relaxation solution is fractional. We demonstrate the power of our equivalent condition by applying it to two ensembles of random problem instances that are challenging and popularly used in literature and prove that our method achieves exactness with overwhelming probability and nearly optimal sample complexity. Empirically, we use synthetic datasets to demonstrate that our proposed method significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art group sparse learning models in terms of individual and group support recovery when the number of samples is small. Furthermore, we show the out-performance of our method in cancer drug response prediction.

We propose a new family of regularized Rényi divergences parametrized not only by the order $\alpha$ but also by a variational function space. These new objects are defined by taking the infimal convolution of the standard Rényi divergence with the integral probability metric (IPM) associated with the chosen function space. We derive a novel dual variational representation that can be used to construct numerically tractable divergence estimators. This representation avoids risk-sensitive terms and therefore exhibits lower variance, making it well-behaved when $\alpha>1$; this addresses a notable weakness of prior approaches. We prove several properties of these new divergences, showing that they interpolate between the classical Rényi divergences and IPMs. We also study the $\alpha\to\infty$ limit, which leads to a regularized worst-case-regret and a new variational representation in the classical case. Moreover, we show that the proposed regularized Rényi divergences inherit features from IPMs such as the ability to compare distributions that are not absolutely continuous, e.g., empirical measures and distributions with low-dimensional support. We present numerical results on both synthetic and real datasets, showing the utility of these new divergences in both estimation and GAN training applications; in particular, we demonstrate significantly reduced variance and improved training performance.

A multitude of work has shown that machine learning-based medical diagnosis systems can be biased against certain subgroups of people. This has motivated a growing number of bias mitigation algorithms that aim to address fairness issues in machine learning. However, it is difficult to compare their effectiveness in medical imaging for two reasons. First, there is little consensus on the criteria to assess fairness. Second, existing bias mitigation algorithms are developed under different settings, e.g., datasets, model selection strategies, backbones, and fairness metrics, making a direct comparison and evaluation based on existing results impossible. In this work, we introduce MEDFAIR, a framework to benchmark the fairness of machine learning models for medical imaging. MEDFAIR covers eleven algorithms from various categories, ten datasets from different imaging modalities, and three model selection criteria. Through extensive experiments, we find that the under-studied issue of model selection criterion can have a significant impact on fairness outcomes; while in contrast, state-of-the-art bias mitigation algorithms do not significantly improve fairness outcomes over empirical risk minimization (ERM) in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings. We evaluate fairness from various perspectives and make recommendations for different medical application scenarios that require different ethical principles. Our framework provides a reproducible and easy-to-use entry point for the development and evaluation of future bias mitigation algorithms in deep learning. Code is available at https://github.com/ys-zong/MEDFAIR.