NeurIPS 2023 Papers

Item-side group fairness (IGF) requires a recommendation model to treat different item groups similarly, and has a crucial impact on information diffusion, consumption activity, and market equilibrium. Previous IGF notions only focus on the direct utility of the item exposures, i.e., the exposure numbers across different item groups. Nevertheless, the item exposures also facilitate utility gained from the neighboring users via social influence, called social utility, such as information sharing on the social media. To fill this gap, this paper introduces two social attribute-aware IGF metrics, which require similar user social attributes on the exposed items across the different item groups. In light of the trade-off between the direct utility and social utility, we formulate a new multi-objective optimization problem for training recommender models with flexible trade-off while ensuring controllable accuracy. To solve this problem, we develop a gradient-based optimization algorithm and theoretically show that the proposed algorithm can find Pareto optimal solutions with varying trade-off and guaranteed accuracy. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets validate the effectiveness of our approach.

In recent years, concept-based approaches have emerged as some of the most promising explainability methods to help us interpret the decisions of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). These methods seek to discover intelligible visual ``concepts'' buried within the complex patterns of ANN activations in two key steps: (1) concept extraction followed by (2) importance estimation. While these two steps are shared across methods, they all differ in their specific implementations. Here, we introduce a unifying theoretical framework that recast the first step -- concept extraction problem -- as a special case of **dictionary learning**, and we formalize the second step -- concept importance estimation -- as a more general form of **attribution method**. This framework offers several advantages as it allows us: (i) to propose new evaluation metrics for comparing different concept extraction approaches; (ii) to leverage modern attribution methods and evaluation metrics to extend and systematically evaluate state-of-the-art concept-based approaches and importance estimation techniques; (iii) to derive theoretical guarantees regarding the optimality of such methods. We further leverage our framework to try to tackle a crucial question in explainability: how to *efficiently* identify clusters of data points that are classified based on a similar shared strategy. To illustrate these findings and to highlight the main strategies of a model, we introduce a visual representation called the strategic cluster graph. Finally, we present Lens, a dedicated website that offers a complete compilation of these visualizations for all classes of the ImageNet dataset.

In the current landscape of explanation methodologies, most predominant approaches, such as SHAP and LIME, employ removal-based techniques to evaluate the impact of individual features by simulating various scenarios with specific features omitted. Nonetheless, these methods primarily emphasize efficiency in the original context, often resulting in general inconsistencies. In this paper, we demonstrate that such inconsistency is an inherent aspect of these approaches by establishing the Impossible Trinity Theorem, which posits that interpretability, efficiency, and consistency cannot hold simultaneously. Recognizing that the attainment of an ideal explanation remains elusive, we propose the utilization of interpretation error as a metric to gauge inefficiencies and inconsistencies. To this end, we present two novel algorithms founded on the standard polynomial basis, aimed at minimizing interpretation error. Our empirical findings indicate that the proposed methods achieve a substantial reduction in interpretation error, up to 31.8 times lower when compared to alternative techniques.

As the scale of machine learning models increases, trends such as scaling laws anticipate consistent downstream improvements in predictive accuracy. However, these trends take the perspective of a single model-provider in isolation, while in reality providers often compete with each other for users. In this work, we demonstrate that competition can fundamentally alter the behavior of these scaling trends, even causing overall predictive accuracy across users to be non-monotonic or decreasing with scale. We define a model of competition for classification tasks, and use data representations as a lens for studying the impact of increases in scale. We find many settings where improving data representation quality (as measured by Bayes risk) decreases the overall predictive accuracy across users (i.e., social welfare) for a marketplace of competing model-providers. Our examples range from closed-form formulas in simple settings to simulations with pretrained representations on CIFAR-10. At a conceptual level, our work suggests that favorable scaling trends for individual model-providers need not translate to downstream improvements in social welfare in marketplaces with multiple model providers.

Large datasets are often affected by cell-wise outliers in the form of missing or erroneous data. However, discarding any samples containing outliers may result in a dataset that is too small to accurately estimate the covariance matrix. Moreover, the robust procedures designed to address this problem require the invertibility of the covariance operator and thus are not effective on high-dimensional data. In this paper, we propose an unbiased estimator for the covariance in the presence of missing values that does not require any imputation step and still achieves near minimax statistical accuracy with the operator norm. We also advocate for its use in combination with cell-wise outlier detection methods to tackle cell-wise contamination in a high-dimensional and low-rank setting, where state-of-the-art methods may suffer from numerical instability and long computation times. To complement our theoretical findings, we conducted an experimental study which demonstrates the superiority of our approach over the state of the art both in low and high dimension settings.

We study core-set construction algorithms for the task of Diversity Maximization under fairness/partition constraint. Given a set of points $P$ in a metric space partitioned into $m$ groups, and given $k_1,\ldots,k_m$, the goal of this problem is to pick $k_i$ points from each group $i$ such that the overall diversity of the $k=\sum_i k_i$ picked points is maximized. We consider two natural diversity measures: sum-of-pairwise distances and sum-of-nearest-neighbor distances, and show improved core-set construction algorithms with respect to these measures. More precisely, we show the first constant factor core-set w.r.t. sum-of-pairwise distances whose size is independent of the size of the dataset and the aspect ratio. Second, we show the first core-set w.r.t. the sum-of-nearest-neighbor distances. Finally, we run several experiments showing the effectiveness of our core-set approach. In particular, we apply constrained diversity maximization to summarize a set of timed messages that takes into account the messages' recency. Specifically, the summary should include more recent messages compared to older ones. This is a real task in one of the largest communication platforms, affecting the experience of hundreds of millions daily active users. By utilizing our core-set method for this task, we achieve a 100x speed-up while losing the diversity by only a few percent. Moreover, our approach allows us to improve the space usage of the algorithm in the streaming setting.

Backdoor attacks have emerged as a prominent threat to natural language processing (NLP) models, where the presence of specific triggers in the input can lead poisoned models to misclassify these inputs to predetermined target classes. Current detection mechanisms are limited by their inability to address more covert backdoor strategies, such as style-based attacks. In this work, we propose an innovative test-time poisoned sample detection framework that hinges on the interpretability of model predictions, grounded in the semantic meaning of inputs. We contend that triggers (e.g., infrequent words) are not supposed to fundamentally alter the underlying semantic meanings of poisoned samples as they want to stay stealthy. Based on this observation, we hypothesize that while the model's predictions for paraphrased clean samples should remain stable, predictions for poisoned samples should revert to their true labels upon the mutations applied to triggers during the paraphrasing process. We employ ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art large language model, as our paraphraser and formulate the trigger-removal task as a prompt engineering problem. We adopt fuzzing, a technique commonly used for unearthing software vulnerabilities, to discover optimal paraphrase prompts that can effectively eliminate triggers while concurrently maintaining input semantics. Experiments on 4 types of backdoor attacks, including the subtle style backdoors, and 4 distinct datasets demonstrate that our approach surpasses baseline methods, including STRIP, RAP, and ONION, in precision and recall.

In real applications, interaction between machine learning models and domain experts is critical; however, the classical machine learning paradigm that usually produces only a single model does not facilitate such interaction. Approximating and exploring the Rashomon set, i.e., the set of all near-optimal models, addresses this practical challenge by providing the user with a searchable space containing a diverse set of models from which domain experts can choose. We present algorithms to efficiently and accurately approximate the Rashomon set of sparse, generalized additive models with ellipsoids for fixed support sets and use these ellipsoids to approximate Rashomon sets for many different support sets. The approximated Rashomon set serves as a cornerstone to solve practical challenges such as (1) studying the variable importance for the model class; (2) finding models under user-specified constraints (monotonicity, direct editing); and (3) investigating sudden changes in the shape functions. Experiments demonstrate the fidelity of the approximated Rashomon set and its effectiveness in solving practical challenges.

In an online social network, link recommendations are a way for users to discover relevant links to people they may know, thereby potentially increasing their engagement on the platform. However, the addition of links to a social network can also have an effect on the level of conflict in the network --- expressed in terms of polarization and disagreement. To date, however, we have very little understanding of how these two implications of link formation relate to each other: are the goals of high relevance and conflict reduction aligned, or are the links that users are most likely to accept fundamentally different from the ones with the greatest potential for reducing conflict? Here we provide the first analysis of this question, using the recently popular Friedkin-Johnsen model of opinion dynamics. We first present a surprising result on how link additions shift the level of opinion conflict, followed by explanation work that relates the amount of shift to structural features of the added links. We then characterize the gap in conflict reduction between the set of links achieving the largest reduction and the set of links achieving the highest relevance. The gap is measured on real-world data, based on instantiations of relevance defined by 13 link recommendation algorithms. We find that some, but not all, of the more accurate algorithms actually lead to better reduction of conflict. Our work suggests that social links recommended for increasing user engagement may not be as conflict-provoking as people might have thought.

Social conflict is a survival mechanism yielding both normal and pathological behaviors. To understand its underlying principles, we collected behavioral and whole-brain neural data from mice advancing through stages of social conflict. We modeled the animals’ interactions as a normal-form game using Bayesian inference to account for the partial observability of animals’ strengths. We find that our behavioral and neural data are consistent with the first-level Theory of Mind (1-ToM) model where mice form “primary” beliefs about the strengths of all mice involved and “secondary” beliefs that estimate the beliefs of their opponents. Our model identifies the brain regions that carry the information about these beliefs and offers a framework for studies of social behaviors in partially observable settings.

Machine learning models are often personalized based on information that is protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. These models use information about people, but do not facilitate nor inform their *consent*. Individuals cannot opt out of reporting information that a model needs to personalize their predictions nor tell if they benefit from personalization in the first place. We introduce a new family of prediction models, called participatory systems, that let individuals opt into personalization at prediction time. We present a model-agnostic algorithm to learn participatory systems for supervised learning tasks where models are personalized with categorical group attributes. We conduct a comprehensive empirical study of participatory systems in clinical prediction tasks, comparing them to common approaches for personalization and imputation. Our results show that participatory systems can facilitate and inform consent in a way that improves performance and privacy across all groups who report personal data.

With the popularity of automatic code generation tools, such as Copilot, the study of the potential hazards of these tools is gaining importance. In this work, we explore the social bias problem in pre-trained code generation models. We propose a new paradigm to construct code prompts and successfully uncover social biases in code generation models. To quantify the severity of social biases in generated code, we develop a dataset along with three metrics to evaluate the overall social bias and fine-grained unfairness across different demographics. Experimental results on three pre-trained code generation models (Codex, InCoder, and CodeGen) with varying sizes, reveal severe social biases. Moreover, we conduct analysis to provide useful insights for further choice of code generation models with low social bias.

We establish precise structural and risk equivalences between subsampling and ridge regularization for ensemble ridge estimators. Specifically, we prove that linear and quadratic functionals of subsample ridge estimators, when fitted with different ridge regularization levels $\lambda$ and subsample aspect ratios $\psi$, are asymptotically equivalent along specific paths in the $(\lambda,\psi)$-plane (where $\psi$ is the ratio of the feature dimension to the subsample size). Our results only require bounded moment assumptions on feature and response distributions and allow for arbitrary joint distributions. Furthermore, we provide a data-dependent method to determine the equivalent paths of $(\lambda,\psi)$. An indirect implication of our equivalences is that optimally tuned ridge regression exhibits a monotonic prediction risk in the data aspect ratio. This resolves a recent open problem raised by Nakkiran et al. for general data distributions under proportional asymptotics, assuming a mild regularity condition that maintains regression hardness through linearized signal-to-noise ratios.

Compositional Explanations is a method for identifying logical formulas of concepts that approximate the neurons' behavior. However, these explanations are linked to the small spectrum of neuron activations (i.e., the highest ones) used to check the alignment, thus lacking completeness. In this paper, we propose a generalization, called Clustered Compositional Explanations, that combines Compositional Explanations with clustering and a novel search heuristic to approximate a broader spectrum of the neuron behavior. We define and address the problems connected to the application of these methods to multiple ranges of activations, analyze the insights retrievable by using our algorithm, and propose desiderata qualities that can be used to study the explanations returned by different algorithms.

As black-box machine learning models become more complex and are applied in high-stakes settings, the need for providing explanations for their predictions becomes crucial. Although Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) \cite{ribeiro2016should} is a widely adopted method for understanding model behavior, it suffers from instability with respect to random seeds \cite{zafar2019dlime, shankaranarayana2019alime, bansal2020sam} and exhibits low local fidelity (i.e., how the explanation explains model's local behaviors) \cite{rahnama2019study, laugel2018defining}. Our study demonstrates that this instability is caused by small sample weights, resulting in the dominance of regularization and slow convergence. Additionally, LIME's sampling approach is non-local and biased towards the reference, leading to diminished local fidelity and instability to references. To address these challenges, we propose \textsc{Glime}, an enhanced framework that extends LIME and unifies several previous methods. Within the \textsc{Glime} framework, we derive an equivalent formulation of LIME that achieves significantly faster convergence and improved stability. By employing a local and unbiased sampling distribution, \textsc{Glime} generates explanations with higher local fidelity compared to LIME, while being independent of the reference choice. Moreover, \textsc{Glime} offers users the flexibility to choose sampling distribution based on their specific scenarios.

Double Auction enables decentralized transfer of goods between multiple buyers and sellers, thus underpinning functioning of many online marketplaces. Buyers and sellers compete in these markets through bidding, but do not often know their own valuation a-priori. As the allocation and pricing happens through bids, the profitability of participants, hence sustainability of such markets, depends crucially on learning respective valuations through repeated interactions. We initiate the study of Double Auction markets under bandit feedback on both buyers' and sellers' side. We show with confidence bound based bidding, and `Average Pricing' there is an efficient price discovery among the participants. In particular, the regret on combined valuation of the buyers and the sellers -- a.k.a. the social regret -- is $O(\log(T)/\Delta)$ in $T$ rounds, where $\Delta$ is the minimum price gap. Moreover, the buyers and sellers exchanging goods attain $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret, individually. The buyers and sellers who do not benefit from exchange in turn only experience $O(\log{T}/ \Delta)$ regret individually in $T$ rounds. We augment our upper bound by showing that $\omega(\sqrt{T})$ individual regret, and $\omega(\log{T})$ social regret is unattainable in certain Double Auction markets. Our paper is the first to provide decentralized learning algorithms in a two-sided market where \emph{both sides have uncertain preference} that need to be learned.