ICML 2025 论文列表

Performativity, the phenomenon where outcomes are influenced by predictions, is particularly prevalent in social contexts where individuals strategically respond to a deployed model. In order to preserve the high accuracy of machine learning models under distribution shifts caused by performativity, Perdomo et al. (2020) introduced the concept of performative risk minimization (PRM). While this framework ensures model accuracy, it overlooks the impact of the PRM on the underlying distributions and the predictions of the model. In this paper, we initiate the analysis of the impact of PRM, by studying performativity for a sequential performative risk minimization problem with binary random variables and linear performative shifts. We formulate two natural measures of impact. In the case of full information, where the distribution dynamics are known, we derive explicit formulas for the PRM solution and our impact measures. In the case of partial information, we provide performative-aware statistical estimators, as well as simulations. Our analysis contrasts PRM to alternatives that do not model data shift and indicates that PRM can have amplified side effects compared to such methods.

As AI research surges in both impact and volume, conferences have imposed submission limits to maintain paper quality and alleviate organizational pressure. In this work, we examine the fairness of desk-rejection systems under submission limits and reveal that existing practices can result in substantial inequities. Specifically, we formally define the paper submission limit problem and identify a critical dilemma: when the number of authors exceeds three, it becomes impossible to reject papers solely based on excessive submissions without negatively impacting innocent authors. Thus, this issue may unfairly affect early-career researchers, as their submissions may be penalized due to co-authors with significantly higher submission counts, while senior researchers with numerous papers face minimal consequences. To address this, we propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism and formally define two fairness metrics: worst-case fairness and average fairness. We prove that optimizing worst-case fairness is NP-hard, whereas average fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming. Through case studies, we demonstrate that our proposed system ensures greater equity than existing methods, including those used in CVPR 2025, offering a more socially just approach to managing excessive submissions in AI conferences.

Ensembles of Deep Neural Networks, Deep Ensembles, are widely used as a simple way to boost predictive performance. However, their impact on algorithmic fairness is not well understood yet. Algorithmic fairness examines how a model's performance varies across socially relevant groups defined by protected attributes such as age, gender, or race. In this work, we explore the interplay between the performance gains from Deep Ensembles and fairness. Our analysis reveals that they unevenly favor different groups, a phenomenon that we term the disparate benefits effect. We empirically investigate this effect using popular facial analysis and medical imaging datasets with protected group attributes and find that it affects multiple established group fairness metrics, including statistical parity and equal opportunity. Furthermore, we identify that the per-group differences in predictive diversity of ensemble members can explain this effect. Finally, we demonstrate that the classical Hardt post-processing method is particularly effective at mitigating the disparate benefits effect of Deep Ensembles by leveraging their better-calibrated predictive distributions.

Despite substantial progress in promoting fairness in high-stake applications using machine learning models, existing methods often modify the training process, such as through regularizers or other interventions, but lack formal guarantees that fairness achieved during training will generalize to unseen data. Although overfitting with respect to prediction performance has been extensively studied, overfitting in terms of fairness loss has received far less attention. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for analyzing fairness generalization error through an information-theoretic lens. Our novel bounding technique is based on Efron–Stein inequality, which allows us to derive tight information-theoretic fairness generalization bounds with both Mutual Information (MI) and Conditional Mutual Information (CMI). Our empirical results validate the tightness and practical relevance of these bounds across diverse fairness-aware learning algorithms. Our framework offers valuable insights to guide the design of algorithms improving fairness generalization.

As the use of predictive machine learning algorithms increases in high-stakes decision-making, it is imperative that these algorithms are fair across sensitive groups. However, measuring and enforcing fairness in real-world applications can be challenging due to missing or incomplete sensitive group information. Proxy-sensitive attributes have been proposed as a practical and effective solution in these settings, but only for parity-based fairness notions. Knowing how to evaluate and control for fairness with missing sensitive group data for newer, different, and more flexible frameworks, such as multiaccuracy and multicalibration, remains unexplored. In this work, we address this gap by demonstrating that in the absence of sensitive group data, proxy-sensitive attributes can provably be used to derive actionable upper bounds on the true multiaccuracy and multicalibration violations, providing insights into a predictive model’s potential worst-case fairness violations. Additionally, we show that adjusting models to satisfy multiaccuracy and multicalibration across proxy-sensitive attributes can significantly mitigate these violations for the true, but unknown, sensitive groups. Through several experiments on real-world datasets, we illustrate that approximate multiaccuracy and multicalibration can be achieved even when sensitive group data is incomplete or unavailable.

In two-sided platforms (e.g., video streaming or e-commerce), viewers and providers engage in interactive dynamics: viewers benefit from increases in provider populations, while providers benefit from increases in viewer population. Despite the importance of such “population effects” on long-term platform health, recommendation policies do not generally take the participation dynamics into account. This paper thus studies the dynamics and recommender policy design on two-sided platforms under the population effects for the first time. Our control- and game-theoretic findings warn against the use of the standard “myopic-greedy” policy and shed light on the importance of provider-side considerations (i.e., effectively distributing exposure among provider groups) to improve social welfare via population growth. We also present a simple algorithm to optimize long-term social welfare by taking the population effects into account, and demonstrate its effectiveness in synthetic and real-data experiments. Our experiment code is available at https://github.com/sdean-group/dynamics-two-sided-market.

Despite significant advancements in post-hoc explainability techniques for neural networks, many current methods rely on heuristics and do not provide formally provable guarantees over the explanations provided. Recent work has shown that it is possible to obtain explanations with formal guarantees by identifying subsets of input features that are sufficient to determine that predictions remain unchanged using neural network verification techniques. Despite the appeal of these explanations, their computation faces significant scalability challenges. In this work, we address this gap by proposing a novel abstraction-refinement technique for efficiently computing provably sufficient explanations of neural network predictions. Our method *abstracts* the original large neural network by constructing a substantially reduced network, where a sufficient explanation of the reduced network is also *provably sufficient* for the original network, hence significantly speeding up the verification process. If the explanation is insufficient on the reduced network, we iteratively *refine* the network size by gradually increasing it until convergence. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances the efficiency of obtaining provably sufficient explanations for neural network predictions while additionally providing a fine-grained interpretation of the network's predictions across different abstraction levels.

Diversity in training data, architecture, and providers is assumed to mitigate homogeneity in LLMs. However, we lack empirical evidence on whether different LLMs differ \textit{meaningfully}. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation on over 350 LLMs overall, using two popular leaderboards and a resume-screening task. We find substantial correlation in model errors---on one leaderboard dataset, models agree 60\% of the time when both models err. We identify factors driving model correlation, including shared architectures and providers. Crucially, however, larger and more accurate models have highly correlated errors, even with distinct architectures and providers. Finally, we show the effects of correlation in two downstream tasks: LLM-as-judge evaluation and hiring---the latter reflecting theoretical predictions regarding algorithmic monoculture.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit strong biases, e.g, against women or in favor of the number 7. We investigate whether LLMs would be able to output less biased answers when allowed to observe their prior answers to the same question in a multi-turn conversation. To understand which types of questions invite more biased answers, we test LLMs on our proposed set of questions that span 9 topics and belong to three types: (1) Subjective; (2) Random; and (3) Objective. Interestingly, LLMs are able to "de-bias" themselves in a multi-turn conversation in response to questions that seek a Random, unbiased answer. Furthermore, we propose B-score, a novel metric that is effective in detecting biases in Subjective, Random, Easy, and Hard questions. On MMLU, HLE, and CSQA, leveraging B-score substantially improves the verification accuracy of LLM answers (i.e, accepting LLM correct answers and rejecting incorrect ones) compared to using verbalized confidence scores or the frequency of single-turn answers alone. Code and data are available at: b-score.github.io.

Label distribution learning (LDL) is a novel machine learning paradigm that can handle label ambiguity. This paper focuses on the interpretability issue of label distribution learning. Existing local interpretability models are mainly designed for single-label learning problems and are difficult to directly interpret label distribution learning models. In response to this situation, we propose an improved local interpretable model-agnostic explanations algorithm that can effectively interpret any black-box model in label distribution learning. To address the label dependency problem, we introduce the feature attribution distribution matrix and derive the solution formula for explanations under the label distribution form. Meanwhile, to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of the explanation algorithm, we provide an analytical solution and derive the boundary conditions for explanation convergence and stability. In addition, we design a feature selection scoring function and a fidelity metric for the explanation task of label distribution learning. A series of numerical experiments and human experiments were conducted to validate the performance of the proposed algorithm in practical applications. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm achieves high fidelity, consistency, and trustworthiness in explaining LDL models.

Capability evaluations are required to understand and regulate AI systems that may be deployed or further developed. Therefore, it is important that evaluations provide an accurate estimation of an AI system’s capabilities. However, in numerous cases, previously latent capabilities have been elicited from models, sometimes long after initial release. Accordingly, substantial efforts have been made to develop methods for eliciting latent capabilities from models. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of capability elicitation techniques by intentionally training model organisms – language models with hidden capabilities that are revealed by a password. We introduce a novel method for training model organisms, based on circuit-breaking, which is more robust to elicitation techniques than standard password-locked models. We focus on elicitation techniques based on prompting and activation steering, and compare these to fine-tuning methods. Prompting techniques can elicit the actual capability of both password-locked and circuit- broken model organisms in an MCQA setting, while steering fails to do so. For a code-generation task, only fine-tuning can elicit the hidden capabilities of our novel model organism. Additionally, our results suggest that combining techniques improves elicitation. Still, if possible, fine-tuning should be the method of choice to improve the trustworthiness of capability evaluations.

Ensemble models are widely recognized in the ML community for their limited interpretability. For instance, while a single decision tree is considered interpretable, ensembles of trees (e.g., boosted trees) are often treated as black-boxes. Despite this folklore recognition, there remains a lack of rigorous mathematical understanding of what particularly makes an ensemble (un)-interpretable, including how fundamental factors like the (1) *number*, (2) *size*, and (3) *type* of base models influence its interpretability. In this work, we seek to bridge this gap by applying concepts from computational complexity theory to study the challenges of generating explanations for various ensemble configurations. Our analysis uncovers nuanced complexity patterns influenced by various factors. For example, we demonstrate that under standard complexity assumptions like P$\neq$NP, interpreting ensembles remains intractable even when base models are of constant size. Surprisingly, the complexity changes drastically with the number of base models: small ensembles of decision trees are efficiently interpretable, whereas ensembles of linear models remain intractable, even with a constant number of models. We believe that our findings provide a more robust foundation for understanding the interpretability of ensembles, emphasizing the benefits of examining it through a computational complexity lens.

In an era of increasingly capable foundation models, job seekers are turning to generative AI tools to enhance their application materials. However, unequal access to and knowledge about generative AI tools can harm both employers and candidates by reducing the accuracy of hiring decisions and giving some candidates an unfair advantage. To address these challenges, we introduce a new variant of the strategic classification framework tailored to manipulations performed using large language models, accommodating varying levels of manipulations and stochastic outcomes. We propose a "two-ticket" scheme, where the hiring algorithm applies an additional manipulation to each submitted resume and considers this manipulated version together with the original submitted resume. We establish theoretical guarantees for this scheme, showing improvements for both the fairness and accuracy of hiring decisions when the true positive rate is maximized subject to a no false positives constraint. We further generalize this approach to an $n$-ticket scheme and prove that hiring outcomes converge to a fixed, group-independent decision, eliminating disparities arising from differential LLM access. Finally, we empirically validate our framework and the performance of our two-ticket scheme on real resumes using an open-source resume screening tool.

Algorithmic fairness in clustering aims to balance the proportions of instances assigned to each cluster with respect to a given sensitive attribute. While recently developed fair clustering algorithms optimize clustering objectives under specific fairness constraints, their inherent complexity or approximation often results in suboptimal clustering utility or numerical instability in practice. To resolve these limitations, we propose a new fair clustering algorithm based on a novel decomposition of the fair $K$-means clustering objective function. The proposed algorithm, called Fair Clustering via Alignment (FCA), operates by alternately (i) finding a joint probability distribution to align the data from different protected groups, and (ii) optimizing cluster centers in the aligned space. A key advantage of FCA is that it theoretically guarantees approximately optimal clustering utility for any given fairness level without complex constraints, thereby enabling high-utility fair clustering in practice. Experiments show that FCA outperforms existing methods by (i) attaining a superior trade-off between fairness level and clustering utility, and (ii) achieving near-perfect fairness without numerical instability.

LLM watermarks stand out as a promising way to attribute ownership of LLM-generated text. One threat to watermark credibility comes from spoofing attacks, where an unauthorized third party forges the watermark, enabling it to falsely attribute arbitrary texts to a particular LLM. Despite recent work demonstrating that state-of-the-art schemes are, in fact, vulnerable to spoofing, no prior work has focused on post-hoc methods to discover spoofing attempts. In this work, we for the first time propose a reliable statistical method to distinguish spoofed from genuinely watermarked text, suggesting that current spoofing attacks are less effective than previously thought. In particular, we show that regardless of their underlying approach, all current learning-based spoofing methods consistently leave observable artifacts in spoofed texts, indicative of watermark forgery. We build upon these findings to propose rigorous statistical tests that reliably reveal the presence of such artifacts and thus demonstrate that a watermark has been spoofed. Our experimental evaluation shows high test power across all learning-based spoofing methods, providing insights into their fundamental limitations and suggesting a way to mitigate this threat.

This paper focuses on the fundamental challenge of partitioning input variables in attribution methods for Explainable AI, particularly in Shapley value-based approaches. Previous methods always compute attributions given a predefined partition but lack theoretical guidance on how to form meaningful variable partitions. We identify that attribution conflicts arise when the attribution of a coalition differs from the sum of its individual variables' attributions. To address this, we analyze the numerical effects of AND-OR interactions in AI models and extend the Shapley value to a new attribution metric for variable coalitions. Our theoretical findings reveal that specific interactions cause attribution conflicts, and we propose three metrics to evaluate coalition faithfulness. Experiments on synthetic data, NLP, image classification, and the game of Go validate our approach, demonstrating consistency with human intuition and practical applicability.

We propose FACTER, a fairness-aware framework for LLM-based recommendation systems that integrates conformal prediction with dynamic prompt engineering. By introducing an adaptive semantic variance threshold and a violation-triggered mechanism, FACTER automatically tightens fairness constraints whenever biased patterns emerge. We further develop an adversarial prompt generator that leverages historical violations to reduce repeated demographic biases without retraining the LLM. Empirical results on MovieLens and Amazon show that FACTER substantially reduces fairness violations (up to 95.5%) while maintaining strong recommendation accuracy, revealing semantic variance as a potent proxy of bias.

This position paper critiques the reliance on rigid racial taxonomies in machine learning, exposing their U.S.-centric nature and lack of global applicability—particularly in Europe, where race categories are not commonly used. These classifications oversimplify racial identity, erasing the experiences of mixed-race individuals and reinforcing outdated essentialist views that contradict the social construction of race. We suggest research agendas in machine learning that move beyond categorical variables to better address discrimination and social inequality.

In principle, explanations are intended as a way to increase trust in machine learning models and are often obligated by regulations. However, many circumstances where these are demanded are adversarial in nature, meaning the involved parties have misaligned interests and are incentivized to manipulate explanations for their purpose. As a result, explainability methods fail to be operational in such settings despite the demand. In this paper, we take a step towards operationalizing explanations in adversarial scenarios with Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic primitive. Specifically we explore ZKP-amenable versions of the popular explainability algorithm LIME and evaluate their performance on Neural Networks and Random Forests. Our code is publicly available at : \url{https://github.com/emlaufer/ExpProof}.