NeurIPS 2023 Papers

Adversarial Robustness Distillation (ARD) aims to transfer the robustness of large teacher models to small student models, facilitating the attainment of robust performance on resource-limited devices. However, existing research on ARD primarily focuses on the overall robustness of student models, overlooking the crucial aspect of $\textit{robust fairness}$. Specifically, these models may demonstrate strong robustness on some classes of data while exhibiting high vulnerability on other classes. Unfortunately, the "buckets effect" implies that the robustness of the deployed model depends on the classes with the lowest level of robustness. In this paper, we first investigate the inheritance of robust fairness during ARD and reveal that student models only partially inherit robust fairness from teacher models. We further validate this issue through fine-grained experiments with various model capacities and find that it may arise due to the gap in capacity between teacher and student models, as well as the existing methods treating each class equally during distillation. Based on these observations, we propose $\textbf{Fair}$ $\textbf{A}$dversarial $\textbf{R}$obustness $\textbf{D}$istillation (Fair-ARD), a novel framework for enhancing the robust fairness of student models by increasing the weights of difficult classes, and design a geometric perspective-based method to quantify the difficulty of different classes for determining the weights. Extensive experiments show that Fair-ARD surpasses both state-of-the-art ARD methods and existing robust fairness algorithms in terms of robust fairness (e.g., the worst-class robustness under AutoAttack is improved by at most 12.3\% and 5.3\% using ResNet18 on CIFAR10, respectively), while also slightly improving overall robustness. Our code is available at: [https://github.com/NISP-official/Fair-ARD](https://github.com/NISP-official/Fair-ARD).

Missing values in real-world data pose a significant and unique challenge to algorithmic fairness. Different demographic groups may be unequally affected by missing data, and the standard procedure for handling missing values where first data is imputed, then the imputed data is used for classification—a procedure referred to as "impute-then-classify"—can exacerbate discrimination. In this paper, we analyze how missing values affect algorithmic fairness. We first prove that training a classifier from imputed data can significantly worsen the achievable values of group fairness and average accuracy. This is because imputing data results in the loss of the missing pattern of the data, which often conveys information about the predictive label. We present scalable and adaptive algorithms for fair classification with missing values. These algorithms can be combined with any preexisting fairness-intervention algorithm to handle all possible missing patterns while preserving information encoded within the missing patterns. Numerical experiments with state-of-the-art fairness interventions demonstrate that our adaptive algorithms consistently achieve higher fairness and accuracy than impute-then-classify across different datasets.

We consider contextual bandit problems with knapsacks [CBwK], a problem where at each round, a scalar reward is obtained and vector-valued costs are suffered. The learner aims to maximize the cumulative rewards while ensuring that the cumulative costs are lower than some predetermined cost constraints. We assume that contexts come from a continuous set, that costs can be signed, and that the expected reward and cost functions, while unknown, may be uniformly estimated---a typical assumption in the literature. In this setting, total cost constraints had so far to be at least of order $T^{3/4}$, where $T$ is the number of rounds, and were even typically assumed to depend linearly on $T$. We are however motivated to use CBwK to impose a fairness constraint of equalized average costs between groups: the budget associated with the corresponding cost constraints should be as close as possible to the natural deviations, of order $\sqrt{T}$. To that end, we introduce a dual strategy based on projected-gradient-descent updates, that is able to deal with total-cost constraints of the order of $\sqrt{T}$ up to poly-logarithmic terms. This strategy is more direct and simpler than existing strategies in the literature. It relies on a careful, adaptive, tuning of the step size.

The remarkable attention which fair clustering has received in the last few years has resulted in a significant number of different notions of fairness. Despite the fact that these notions are well-justified, they are often motivated and studied in a disjoint manner where one fairness desideratum is considered exclusively in isolation from the others. This leaves the understanding of the relations between different fairness notions as an important open problem in fair clustering. In this paper, we take the first step in this direction. Specifically, we consider the two most prominent demographic representation fairness notions in clustering: (1) Group Fairness ($\textbf{GF}$), where the different demographic groups are supposed to have close to population-level representation in each cluster and (2) Diversity in Center Selection ($\textbf{DS}$), where the selected centers are supposed to have close to population-level representation of each group. We show that given a constant approximation algorithm for one constraint ($\textbf{GF}$ or $\textbf{DS}$ only) we can obtain a constant approximation solution that satisfies both constraints simultaneously. Interestingly, we prove that any given solution that satisfies the $\textbf{GF}$ constraint can always be post-processed at a bounded degradation to the clustering cost to additionally satisfy the $\textbf{DS}$ constraint while the same statement is not true given a solution that satisfies $\textbf{DS}$ instead. Furthermore, we show that both $\textbf{GF}$ and $\textbf{DS}$ are incompatible (having an empty feasibility set in the worst case) with a collection of other distance-based fairness notions. Finally, we carry experiments to validate our theoretical findings.

In voting theory, when voters have ranked preferences over candidates, the celebrated Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem essentially rules out the existence of reasonable strategyproof methods for picking a winner. What if we weaken strategyproofness to only hold for Bayesian voters with beliefs over others' preferences? When voters believe other participants' rankings are drawn independently from a fixed distribution, the impossibility persists. However, it is quite reasonable for a voter to believe that other votes are correlated, either to each other or to their own ranking. We consider such beliefs induced by classic probabilistic models in social choice such as the Mallows, Placket-Luce, and Thurstone-Mosteller models. We single out the plurality rule (choosing the candidate ranked first most often) as a particularly promising choice as it is strategyproof for a large class of beliefs containing the specific ones we introduce. Further, we show that plurality is unique among positional scoring rules in having this property: no other scoring rule is strategyproof for beliefs induced by the Mallows model when there are a sufficient number of voters. Finally, we give examples of prominent non-scoring voting rules failing to be strategyproof on beliefs in this class, further bolstering the case for plurality.

Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research. We tackle this challenge by introducing a notion of group fairness, called the core, which requires that every possible community (subset of researchers) to be treated in a way that prevents them from unilaterally benefiting by withdrawing from a large conference. We study a simple peer review model, prove that it always admits a reviewing assignment in the core, and design an efficient algorithm to find one such assignment. We use real data from CVPR and ICLR conferences to compare our algorithm to existing reviewing assignment algorithms on a number of metrics.

This paper investigates fairness and bias in Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), a widely used statistical technique for examining the relationship between two sets of variables. We present a framework that alleviates unfairness by minimizing the correlation disparity error associated with protected attributes. Our approach enables CCA to learn global projection matrices from all data points while ensuring that these matrices yield comparable correlation levels to group-specific projection matrices. Experimental evaluation on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of our method in reducing correlation disparity error without compromising CCA accuracy.

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.

We obtain essentially tight upper bounds for a strengthened notion of regret in the stochastic linear bandits framework. The strengthening---referred to as Nash regret---is defined as the difference between the (a priori unknown) optimum and the geometric mean of expected rewards accumulated by the linear bandit algorithm. Since the geometric mean corresponds to the well-studied Nash social welfare (NSW) function, this formulation quantifies the performance of a bandit algorithm as the collective welfare it generates across rounds. NSW is known to satisfy fairness axioms and, hence, an upper bound on Nash regret provides a principled fairness guarantee. We consider the stochastic linear bandits problem over a horizon of $\mathsf{T}$ rounds and with a set of arms ${\cal X}$ in ambient dimension $d$. Furthermore, we focus on settings in which the stochastic reward---associated with each arm in ${\cal X}$---is a non-negative, sub-Poisson random variable. For this setting, we develop an algorithm that achieves a Nash regret of $O\left( \sqrt{\frac{d}{\mathsf{T}}} \log(\mathsf{T} |{\cal X}|)\right)$. In addition, addressing linear bandit instances in which the set of arms ${\cal X}$ is not necessarily finite, we obtain a Nash regret upper bound of $O\left( \frac{d^\frac{5}{4}}{\sqrt{\mathsf{T}}} \log(\mathsf{T})\right)$. Since bounded random variables are sub-Poisson, these results hold for bounded, non-negative rewards. Our linear bandit algorithm is built upon the successive elimination method with novel technical insights, including tailored concentration bounds and the use of sampling via John ellipsoid in conjunction with the Kiefer–Wolfowitz optimal design.

We provide practical, efficient, and nonparametric methods for auditing the fairness of deployed classification and regression models. Whereas previous work relies on a fixed-sample size, our methods are sequential and allow for the continuous monitoring of incoming data, making them highly amenable to tracking the fairness of real-world systems. We also allow the data to be collected by a probabilistic policy as opposed to sampled uniformly from the population. This enables auditing to be conducted on data gathered for another purpose. Moreover, this policy may change over time and different policies may be used on different subpopulations. Finally, our methods can handle distribution shift resulting from either changes to the model or changes in the underlying population. Our approach is based on recent progress in anytime-valid inference and game-theoretic statistics---the ``testing by betting'' framework in particular. These connections ensure that our methods are interpretable, fast, and easy to implement. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on three benchmark fairness datasets.

Fairness in machine learning has attracted increasing attention in recent years. The fairness methods improving algorithmic fairness for in-distribution data may not perform well under distribution shifts. In this paper, we first theoretically demonstrate the inherent connection between distribution shift, data perturbation, and model weight perturbation. Subsequently, we analyze the sufficient conditions to guarantee fairness (i.e., low demographic parity) for the target dataset, including fairness for the source dataset, and low prediction difference between the source and target datasets for each sensitive attribute group. Motivated by these sufficient conditions, we propose robust fairness regularization (RFR) by considering the worst case within the model weight perturbation ball for each sensitive attribute group. We evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed RFR algorithm on synthetic and real distribution shifts across various datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that RFR achieves better fairness-accuracy trade-off performance compared with several baselines. The source code is available at \url{https://github.com/zhimengj0326/RFR_NeurIPS23}.

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.

While machine learning can myopically reinforce social inequalities, it may also be used to dynamically seek equitable outcomes. In this paper, we formalize long-term fairness as an online reinforcement learning problem for a policy affecting human populations. This formulation accommodates dynamical control objectives, such as achieving equitable population states, that cannot be incorporated into static formulations of fairness. We demonstrate that algorithmic solutions to the proposed fairness problem can adapt to unknown dynamics and, by sacrificing short-term incentives, drive the policy-population system towards more desirable equilibria. For the proposed setting, we develop an algorithm that adapts recent work in online learning and prove that this algorithm achieves simultaneous probabilistic bounds on cumulative loss and cumulative violations of fairness. In the classification setting subject to group fairness, we compare our proposed algorithm to several baselines, including the repeated retraining of myopic or distributionally robust classifiers, and to a deep reinforcement learning algorithm that lacks fairness guarantees. Our experiments model human populations according to evolutionary game theory and integrate real-world datasets.

In this work, we present Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups (FACTS), a framework for auditing subgroup fairness through counterfactual explanations. We start with revisiting (and generalizing) existing notions and introducing new, more refined notions of subgroup fairness. We aim to (a) formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse, i.e. receive the desired outcome, either at the micro level, considering members of the subgroup individually, or at the macro level, considering the subgroup as a whole, and (b) introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse. We accompany these notions with an efficient, model-agnostic, highly parameterizable, and explainable framework for evaluating subgroup fairness. We demonstrate the advantages, the wide applicability, and the efficiency of our approach through a thorough experimental evaluation on different benchmark datasets.