反事实公平

Graphical models have been widely used as parsimonious encoders of assumptions of the underlying causal system and provide a basis for causal inferences. Models encoding stronger constraints tend to require higher expressive power, which are also harder, and sometimes impossible to empirically falsify. In this paper, we introduce two new collections of distributions that include counterfactual quan- tities which are experimentally accessible under counterfactual randomizations. Correspondingly, we define two new classes of graphical models for encoding empirically testable constraints in these distributions. We further present a sound and complete calculus, based on counterfactual calculus, which licenses inferences in these two new models with rules that are within the empirically falsifiable bound- ary. Finally, we formulate a hierarchy over several graphical models based on the constraints they encode and study the fundamental trade-off between the expressive power and empirical falsifiability of different models across the hierarchy.

Statistical parity is one of the most foundational constraints in algorithmic fairness and privacy. In this paper, we show that statistical parity can be enforced efficiently in the contextual bandit setting while retaining strong performance guarantees. Specifically, we present a meta-algorithm that transforms any efficient implementation of Hedge (or, equivalently, any discrete Bayesian inference algorithm) into an efficient contextual bandit algorithm that guarantees exact statistical parity on every trial. Compared to any comparator that satisfies the same statistical parity constraint, the algorithm achieves the same asymptotic regret bound as running the equivalent instance of Exp4 for each group. We also address the scenario where the target parity distribution is unknown and must be estimated online. Finally, using online-to-batch conversion, we extend our approach to the batch classification setting - achieving exact statistical parity there as well, whilst attaining excellent generalisation bounds. We believe these batch bounds to be a significant contribution to the literature in their own right.

As machine learning applications grow increasingly ubiquitous and complex, they face an increasing set of requirements beyond accuracy. The prevalent approach to handle this challenge is to aggregate a weighted combination of requirement violation penalties into the training objective. To be effective, this approach requires careful tuning of these hyperparameters (weights), involving trial-and-error and cross-validation, which becomes ineffective even for a moderate number of requirements. These issues are exacerbated when the requirements involve parities or equalities, as is the case in fairness and boundary value problems. An alternative technique uses constrained optimization to formulate these learning problems. Yet, existing approximation and generalization guarantees do not apply to problems involving equality constraints. In this work, we derive a generalization theory for equality-constrained statistical learning problems, showing that their solutions can be approximated using samples and rich parametrizations. Using these results, we propose a practical algorithm based on solving a sequence of *unconstrained*, *empirical* learning problems. We showcase its effectiveness and the new formulations enabled by equality constraints in fair learning, interpolating classifiers, and boundary value problems.

We consider the classic cake-cutting problem of producing fair allocations for $n$ agents, in the Robertson–Webb query model. In this model, it is known that: (i) proportional allocations can be computed using $O(n \log n)$ queries, and this is optimal for deterministic protocols; (ii) envy-free allocations (a subset of proportional allocations) can be computed using $O\left( n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n}}}}} \right)$ queries, and the best known lower bound is $\Omega(n^2)$; (iii) perfect allocations (a subset of envy-free allocations) cannot be computed using a bounded (in $n$) number of queries. In this work, we introduce two hierarchies of new fairness notions: \newnotioninverse \,(\newnotioninverseabbrev) and \newnotionlinear \,(\newnotionlinearabbrev). An allocation is \newnotioninverseabbrev-$k$ if the allocation is complete and, for any subset of agents $S$ of size at most $k$, every agent $i \in S$ believes the value of all pieces allocated to agents in $S$ to be at least $\frac{1}{n-|S|+1}$, making the union of all pieces allocated to agents not in $S$ at most $\frac{n-|S|}{n-|S|+1}$; for \newnotionlinearabbrev-$k$ allocations, these bounds become $\frac{|S|}{n}$ and $\frac{n-|S|}{n}$, respectively. Intuitively, these notions of fairness ask that, for every agent $i$, the collective value (from the perspective of agent $i$) that a group of agents receives is limited. If the group includes $i$, its value is lower-bounded, and if the group excludes $i$, it is upper-bounded, thus providing the agent some protection against the formation of coalitions. Our hierarchies bridge the gap between proportionality, envy-freeness, and super envy-freeness. \newnotioninverseabbrev-$k$ and \newnotionlinearabbrev-$k$ coincide with proportionality for $k=1$. For all $k \leq n$, \newnotioninverseabbrev-$k$ allocations are a superset of envy-free allocations (i.e., easier to find). On the other hand, for $k \in [2, \lceil n/2 \rceil - 1]$, \newnotionlinearabbrev-$k$ allocations are incomparable to envy-free allocations. For $k \geq \lceil n/2 \rceil$, \newnotionlinearabbrev-$k$ allocations are a subset of envy-free allocations (i.e., harder to find), while \newnotionlinearabbrev-$n$ coincides with super envy-freeness: the value of each agent for their piece is at least $1/n$, and their value for the piece allocated to any other agent is at most $1/n$. We prove that \newnotioninverseabbrev-$n$ allocations can be computed using $O(n^4)$ queries in the Robertson–Webb model. On the flip side, finding \newnotioninverseabbrev-$2$ (and therefore all \newnotioninverseabbrev-$k$ for $k \geq 2$) allocations requires $\Omega(n^2)$ queries, while \newnotionlinearabbrev-$2$ (and therefore all \newnotionlinearabbrev-$k$ for $k \geq 2$) allocations cannot be computed using a bounded (in $n$) number of queries. Our results reveal that envy-free allocations occupy a curious middle ground, between a computationally impossible notion of fairness, \newnotionlinearabbrev-$\lceil n/2 \rceil$, and a computationally ``easy'' notion, \newnotioninverseabbrev-$n$.

Models of hybrid dynamical systems are widely used to answer questions about the causes and effects of dynamic events in time. Unfortunately, existing causal reasoning formalisms lack support for queries involving the dynamically triggered, discontinuous interventions that characterize hybrid dynamical systems. This mismatch can lead to ad-hoc and error-prone causal analysis workflows in practice. To bridge the gap between the needs of hybrid systems users and current causal inference capabilities, we develop a rigorous counterfactual semantics by formalizing interventions as transformations to the constraints of hybrid systems. Unlike interventions in a typical structural causal model, however, interventions in hybrid systems can easily render the model ill-posed. Thus, we identify mild conditions under which our interventions maintain solution existence, uniqueness, and measurability by making explicit connections to established hybrid systems theory. To illustrate the utility of our framework, we formalize a number of canonical causal estimands and explore a case study on the probabilities of causation with applications to fishery management. Our work simultaneously expands the modeling possibilities available to causal inference practitioners and begins to unlock decades of causality research for users of hybrid systems.