反事实公平

Linear temporal logic (LTL) offers a simplified way of specifying tasks for policy optimization that may otherwise be difficult to describe with scalar reward functions. However, the standard RL framework can be too myopic to find maximally LTL satisfying policies. This paper makes two contributions. First, we develop a new value-function based proxy, using a technique we call eventual discounting, under which one can find policies that satisfy the LTL specification with highest achievable probability. Second, we develop a new experience replay method for generating off-policy data from on-policy rollouts via counterfactual reasoning on different ways of satisfying the LTL specification. Our experiments, conducted in both discrete and continuous state-action spaces, confirm the effectiveness of our counterfactual experience replay approach.

Randomized smoothing is a popular method to certify robustness of image classifiers to adversarial input perturbations. It is the only certification technique which scales directly to datasets of higher dimension such as ImageNet. However, current techniques are not able to utilize the fact that any adversarial example has to lie in the image space, that is $[0,1]^d$; otherwise, one can trivially detect it. To address this suboptimality, we derive new certification formulae which lead to significant improvements in the certified $\ell_1$-robustness without the need of adapting the classifiers or change of smoothing distributions. The code is released at https://github.com/vvoracek/L1-smoothing

Trustworthy policy learning has significant importance in making reliable and harmless treatment decisions for individuals. Previous policy learning approaches aim at the well-being of subgroups by maximizing the utility function (e.g., conditional average causal effects, post-view click-through&conversion rate in recommendations), however, individual-level counterfactual no-harm criterion has rarely been discussed. In this paper, we first formalize the counterfactual no-harm criterion for policy learning from a principal stratification perspective. Next, we propose a novel upper bound for the fraction negatively affected by the policy and show the consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimator. Based on the estimators for the policy utility and harm upper bounds, we further propose a policy learning approach that satisfies the counterfactual no-harm criterion, and prove its consistency to the optimal policy reward for parametric and non-parametric policy classes, respectively. Extensive experiments are conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed policy learning approach for satisfying the counterfactual no-harm criterion.

The prevalence and importance of algorithmic two-sided marketplaces has drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. Algorithmic decisions are used in assigning students to schools, users to advertisers, and applicants to job interviews. These decisions should heed the preferences of individuals, and simultaneously be fair with respect to their merits (synonymous with fit, future performance, or need). Merits conditioned on observable features are always *uncertain*, a fact that is exacerbated by the widespread use of machine learning algorithms to infer merit from the observables. As our key contribution, we carefully axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits; indeed, it simultaneously recognizes uncertainty as the primary potential cause of unfairness and an approach to address it. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations, and we show that the linear program is robust to perturbations in the estimated parameters of the uncertain merit distributions, a key property in combining the approach with machine learning techniques.

Evaluating fairness can be challenging in practice because the sensitive attributes of data are often inaccessible due to privacy constraints. The go-to approach that the industry frequently adopts is using off-the-shelf proxy models to predict the missing sensitive attributes, e.g. Meta (Alao et al., 2021) and Twitter (Belli et al., 2022). Despite its popularity, there are three important questions unanswered: (1) Is directly using proxies efficacious in measuring fairness? (2) If not, is it possible to accurately evaluate fairness using proxies only? (3) Given the ethical controversy over infer-ring user private information, is it possible to only use weak (i.e. inaccurate) proxies in order to protect privacy? Our theoretical analyses show that directly using proxy models can give a false sense of (un)fairness. Second, we develop an algorithm that is able to measure fairness (provably) accurately with only three properly identified proxies. Third, we show that our algorithm allows the use of only weak proxies (e.g. with only 68.85% accuracy on COMPAS), adding an extra layer of protection on user privacy. Experiments validate our theoretical analyses and show our algorithm can effectively measure and mitigate bias. Our results imply a set of practical guidelines for prac-titioners on how to use proxies properly. Code is available at https://github.com/UCSC-REAL/fair-eval.

The fairness of machine learning-based decisions has become an increasingly important focus in the design of supervised machine learning methods. Most fairness approaches optimize a specified trade-off between performance measure(s) (e.g., accuracy, log loss, or AUC) and fairness metric(s) (e.g., demographic parity, equalized odds). This begs the question: are the right performance-fairness trade-offs being specified? We instead re-cast fair machine learning as an imitation learning task by introducing superhuman fairness, which seeks to simultaneously outperform human decisions on multiple predictive performance and fairness measures. We demonstrate the benefits of this approach given suboptimal decisions.

In recent years, multiple notions of algorithmic fairness have arisen. One such notion is individual fairness (IF), which requires that individuals who are similar receive similar treatment. In parallel, matrix estimation (ME) has emerged as a natural paradigm for handling noisy data with missing values. In this work, we connect the two concepts. We show that pre-processing data using ME can improve an algorithm's IF without sacrificing performance. Specifically, we show that using a popular ME method known as singular value thresholding (SVT) to pre-process the data provides a strong IF guarantee under appropriate conditions. We then show that, under analogous conditions, SVT pre-processing also yields estimates that are consistent and approximately minimax optimal. As such, the ME pre-processing step does not, under the stated conditions, increase the prediction error of the base algorithm, i.e., does not impose a fairness-performance trade-off. We verify these results on synthetic and real data.

There is an emerging interest in generating robust counterfactual explanations that would remain valid if the model is updated or changed even slightly. Towards finding robust counterfactuals, existing literature often assumes that the original model $m$ and the new model $M$ are bounded in the parameter space, i.e., $\|\text{Params}(M){-}\text{Params}(m)\|{<}\Delta$. However, models can often change significantly in the parameter space with little to no change in their predictions or accuracy on the given dataset. In this work, we introduce a mathematical abstraction termed *naturally-occurring* model change, which allows for arbitrary changes in the parameter space such that the change in predictions on points that lie on the data manifold is limited. Next, we propose a measure -- that we call *Stability* -- to quantify the robustness of counterfactuals to potential model changes for differentiable models, e.g., neural networks. Our main contribution is to show that counterfactuals with sufficiently high value of *Stability* as defined by our measure will remain valid after potential ``naturally-occurring'' model changes with high probability (leveraging concentration bounds for Lipschitz function of independent Gaussians). Since our quantification depends on the local Lipschitz constant around a data point which is not always available, we also examine practical relaxations of our proposed measure and demonstrate experimentally how they can be incorporated to find robust counterfactuals for neural networks that are close, realistic, and remain valid after potential model changes.

We provide an optimization-based framework to perform counterfactual analysis in a dynamic model with hidden states. Our framework is grounded in the ``abduction, action, and prediction'' approach to answer counterfactual queries and handles two key challenges where (1) the states are hidden and (2) the model is dynamic. Recognizing the lack of knowledge on the underlying causal mechanism and the possibility of infinitely many such mechanisms, we optimize over this space and compute upper and lower bounds on the counterfactual quantity of interest. Our work brings together ideas from causality, state-space models, simulation, and optimization, and we apply it on a breast cancer case study. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to compute lower and upper bounds on a counterfactual query in a dynamic latent-state model.

Streaming submodular maximization is a natural model for the task of selecting a representative subset from a large-scale dataset. If datapoints have sensitive attributes such as gender or race, it becomes important to enforce fairness to avoid bias and discrimination. This has spurred significant interest in developing fair machine learning algorithms. Recently, such algorithms have been developed for monotone submodular maximization under a cardinality constraint. In this paper, we study the natural generalization of this problem to a matroid constraint. We give streaming algorithms as well as impossibility results that provide trade-offs between efficiency, quality and fairness. We validate our findings empirically on a range of well-known real-world applications: exemplar-based clustering, movie recommendation, and maximum coverage in social networks.

Counterfactual explanations have been widely studied in explainability, with a range of application dependent methods prominent in fairness, recourse and model understanding. The major shortcoming associated with these methods, however, is their inability to provide explanations beyond the local or instance-level. While many works touch upon the notion of a global explanation, typically suggesting to aggregate masses of local explanations in the hope of ascertaining global properties, few provide frameworks that are both reliable and computationally tractable. Meanwhile, practitioners are requesting more efficient and interactive explainability tools. We take this opportunity to propose Global & Efficient Counterfactual Explanations (GLOBE-CE), a flexible framework that tackles the reliability and scalability issues associated with current state-of-the-art, particularly on higher dimensional datasets and in the presence of continuous features. Furthermore, we provide a unique mathematical analysis of categorical feature translations, utilising it in our method. Experimental evaluation with publicly available datasets and user studies demonstrate that GLOBE-CE performs significantly better than the current state-of-the-art across multiple metrics (e.g., speed, reliability).

We consider the problem of subset selection where one is given multiple rankings of items and the goal is to select the highest "quality" subset. Score functions from the multiwinner voting literature have been used to aggregate rankings into quality scores for subsets. We study this setting of subset selection problems when, in addition, rankings may contain systemic or unconscious biases toward a group of items. For a general model of input rankings and biases, we show that requiring the selected subset to satisfy group fairness constraints can improve the quality of the selection with respect to unbiased rankings. Importantly, we show that for fairness constraints to be effective, different multiwinner score functions may require a drastically different number of rankings: While for some functions, fairness constraints need an exponential number of rankings to recover a close-to-optimal solution, for others, this dependency is only polynomial. This result relies on a novel notion of "smoothness" of submodular functions in this setting that quantifies how well a function can "correctly" assess the quality of items in the presence of bias. The results in this paper can be used to guide the choice of multiwinner score functions for the subset selection setting considered here; we additionally provide a tool to empirically enable this.

Counterfactual Risk Minimization (CRM) is a framework for dealing with the logged bandit feedback problem, where the goal is to improve a logging policy using offline data. In this paper, we explore the case where it is possible to deploy learned policies multiple times and acquire new data. We extend the CRM principle and its theory to this scenario, which we call "Sequential Counterfactual Risk Minimization (SCRM)." We introduce a novel counterfactual estimator and identify conditions that can improve the performance of CRM in terms of excess risk and regret rates, by using an analysis similar to restart strategies in accelerated optimization methods. We also provide an empirical evaluation of our method in both discrete and continuous action settings, and demonstrate the benefits of multiple deployments of CRM.