Estimates of heterogeneous treatment effects such as conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) and conditional quantile treatment effects (CQTEs) play an important role in real-world decision making. Given this importance, one should ensure these estimators are calibrated. While there is a rich literature on calibrating estimators of non-causal parameters, very few methods have been derived for calibrating estimators of causal parameters, or more generally estimators of quantities involving nuisance parameters. In this work, we develop general algorithms for reducing the task of causal calibration to that of calibrating a standard (non-causal) predictive model. Throughout, we study a notion of calibration defined with respect to an arbitrary, nuisance-dependent loss $\ell$, under which we say an estimator $\theta$ is calibrated if its predictions cannot be changed on any level set to decrease loss. For losses $\ell$ satisfying a condition called universal orthogonality, we present a simple algorithm that transforms partially-observed data into generalized pseudo-outcomes and applies any off-the-shelf calibration procedure. For losses $\ell$ satisfying a weaker assumption called conditional orthogonality, we provide a similar sample splitting algorithm the performs empirical risk minimization over an appropriately defined class of functions. Convergence of both algorithms follows from a generic, two term upper bound of the calibration error of any model that decouples the error in estimating unknown nuisance parameters from the calibration error in a hypothetical world where the learned nuisances are true. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our results in experiments on both observational and synthetic data. Our results are exceedingly general, showing that essentially any existing calibration algorithm can be used in causal settings, with additional loss only arising from errors in nuisance estimation.

A recent line of work has shown a surprising connection between multicalibration, a multi- group fairness notion, and omniprediction, a learning paradigm that provides simultaneous loss minimization guarantees for a large family of loss functions [20, 19, 21, 18]. Prior work studies omniprediction in the batch setting. We initiate the study of omniprediction in the online adversarial setting. Although there exist algorithms for obtaining notions of multicalibration in the online adversarial setting [23], unlike batch algorithms, they work only for small finite classes of benchmark functions F, because they require enumerating every function f ∈ F at every round. In contrast, omniprediction is most interesting for learning theoretic hypothesis classes F, which are generally continuously (or at least exponentially) large.

We show how to take a regression function that is appropriately multicalibrated and efficiently post-process it into an approximately error minimizing classifier satisfying a large variety of fairness constraints. The post-processing requires no labeled data, and only a modest amount of unlabeled data and computation. The computational and sample complexity requirements of computing are comparable to the requirements for solving a single fair learning task optimally, but it can in fact be used to solve many different downstream fairness-constrained learning problems efficiently. Our post-processing method easily handles intersecting groups, generalizing prior work on post-processing regression functions to satisfy fairness constraints that only applied to disjoint groups. Our work extends recent work showing that multicalibrated regression functions are omnipredictors (i.e. can be post-processed to optimally solve unconstrained ERM problems) to constrained optimization problems.

We present a general, efficient technique for providing contextual predictions that are "multivalid" in various senses, against an online sequence of adversarially chosen examples $(x,y)$. This means that the resulting estimates correctly predict various statistics of the labels $y$ not just marginally -- as averaged over the sequence of examples -- but also conditionally on $x \in G$ for any $G$ belonging to an arbitrary intersecting collection of groups $\mathcal{G}$. We provide three instantiations of this framework. The first is mean prediction, which corresponds to an online algorithm satisfying the notion of multicalibration from Hebert-Johnson et al. The second is variance and higher moment prediction, which corresponds to an online algorithm satisfying the notion of mean-conditioned moment multicalibration from Jung et al. Finally, we define a new notion of prediction interval multivalidity, and give an algorithm for finding prediction intervals which satisfy it. Because our algorithms handle adversarially chosen examples, they can equally well be used to predict statistics of the residuals of arbitrary point prediction methods, giving rise to very general techniques for quantifying the uncertainty of predictions of black box algorithms, even in an online adversarial setting. When instantiated for prediction intervals, this solves a similar problem as conformal prediction, but in an adversarial environment and with multivalidity guarantees stronger than simple marginal coverage guarantees.

We give a simple, generic conformal prediction method for sequential prediction that achieves target empirical coverage guarantees on adversarial data. It is computationally lightweight --- comparable to split conformal prediction --- but does not require having a held-out validation set, and so all data can be used for training models from which to derive a conformal score. Furthermore, it gives stronger than marginal coverage guarantees in two ways. First, it gives threshold-calibrated prediction sets that have correct empirical coverage even conditional on the threshold used to form the prediction set from the conformal score. Second, the user can specify an arbitrary collection of subsets of the feature space --- possibly intersecting --- and the coverage guarantees will also hold conditional on membership in each of these subsets. We call our algorithm MVP, short for MultiValid Prediction. We give both theory and an extensive set of empirical evaluations.

We show how to achieve the notion of "multicalibration" from Hebert-Johnson et al. (2018) not just for means, but also for variances and other higher moments. Informally, this means that we can find regression functions which, given a data point, can make point predictions not just for the expectation of its label, but for higher moments of its label distribution as well—and those predictions match the true distribution quantities when averaged not just over the population as a whole, but also when averaged over an enormous number of finely defined subgroups. It yields a principled way to estimate the uncertainty of predictions on many different subgroups—and to diagnose potential sources of unfairness in the predictive power of features across subgroups. As an application, we show that our moment estimates can be used to derive marginal prediction intervals that are simultaneously valid as averaged over all of the (sufficiently large) subgroups for which moment multicalibration has been obtained.

Data deletion algorithms aim to remove the influence of deleted data points from trained models at a cheaper computational cost than fully retraining those models. However, for sequences of deletions, most prior work in the non-convex setting gives valid guarantees only for sequences that are chosen independently of the models that are published. If people choose to delete their data as a function of the published models (because they don’t like what the models reveal about them, for example), then the update sequence is adaptive. In this paper, we give a general reduction from deletion guarantees against adaptive sequences to deletion guarantees against non-adaptive sequences, using differential privacy and its connection to max information. Combined with ideas from prior work which give guarantees for non-adaptive deletion sequences, this leads to extremely flexible algorithms able to handle arbitrary model classes and training methodologies, giving strong provable deletion guarantees for adaptive deletion sequences. We show in theory how prior work for non-convex models fails against adaptive deletion sequences, and use this intuition to design a practical attack against the SISA algorithm of Bourtoule et al. [2021] on CIFAR-10, MNIST, Fashion-MNIST.

We give a new proof of the "transfer theorem" underlying adaptive data analysis: that any mechanism for answering adaptively chosen statistical queries that is differentially private and sample-accurate is also accurate out-of-sample. Our new proof is elementary and gives structural insights that we expect will be useful elsewhere. We show: 1) that differential privacy ensures that the expectation of any query on the conditional distribution on datasets induced by the transcript of the interaction is close to its true value on the data distribution, and 2) sample accuracy on its own ensures that any query answer produced by the mechanism is close to its conditional expectation with high probability. This second claim follows from a thought experiment in which we imagine that the dataset is resampled from the conditional distribution after the mechanism has committed to its answers. The transfer theorem then follows by summing these two bounds. An upshot of our new proof technique is that the concrete bounds we obtain are substantially better than the best previously known bounds.

We give a new proof of the "transfer theorem" underlying adaptive data analysis: that any mechanism for answering adaptively chosen statistical queries that is differentially private and sample-accurate is also accurate out-of-sample. Our new proof is elementary and gives structural insights that we expect will be useful elsewhere. We show: 1) that differential privacy ensures that the expectation of any query on the posterior distribution on datasets induced by the transcript of the interaction is close to its true value on the data distribution, and 2) sample accuracy on its own ensures that any query answer produced by the mechanism is close to its posterior expectation with high probability. This second claim follows from a thought experiment in which we imagine that the dataset is resampled from the posterior distribution after the mechanism has committed to its answers. The transfer theorem then follows by summing these two bounds, and in particular, avoids the "monitor argument" used to derive high probability bounds in prior work. An upshot of our new proof technique is that the concrete bounds we obtain are substantially better than the best previously known bounds, even though the improvements are in the constants, rather than the asymptotics (which are known to be tight). As we show, our new bounds outperform the naive "sample-splitting" baseline at dramatically smaller dataset sizes compared to the previous state of the art, bringing techniques from this literature closer to practicality.

We study an online learning problem subject to the constraint of individual fairness, which requires that similar individuals are treated similarly. Unlike prior work on individual fairness, we do not assume the similarity measure among individuals is known, nor do we assume that such measure takes a certain parametric form. Instead, we leverage the existence of an auditor who detects fairness violations without enunciating the quantitative measure. In each round, the auditor examines the learner's decisions and attempts to identify a pair of individuals that are treated unfairly by the learner. We provide a general reduction framework that reduces online classification in our model to standard online classification, which allows us to leverage existing online learning algorithms to achieve sub-linear regret and number of fairness violations. Surprisingly, in the stochastic setting where the data are drawn independently from a distribution, we are also able to establish PAC-style fairness and accuracy generalization guarantees (Rothblum and Yona (2018)), despite only having access to a very restricted form of fairness feedback. Our fairness generalization bound qualitatively matches the uniform convergence bound of Rothblum and Yona (2018), while also providing a meaningful accuracy generalization guarantee. Our results resolve an open question by Gillen et al. (2018) by showing that online learning under an unknown individual fairness constraint is possible even without assuming a strong parametric form of the underlying similarity measure.

There is great interest in whether machine learning algorithms deployed in consequential domains (e.g. in criminal justice) treat different demographic groups "fairly." However, there are several proposed notions of fairness, typically mutually incompatible. Using criminal justice as an example, we study a model in which society chooses an incarceration rule. Agents of different demographic groups differ in their outside options (e.g. opportunity for legal employment) and decide whether to commit crimes. We show that equalizing type I and type II errors across groups is consistent with the goal of minimizing the overall crime rate; other popular notions of fairness are not.

We consider the multi-armed bandit setting with a twist. Rather than having just one decision maker deciding which arm to pull in each round, we have n different decision makers (agents). In the simple stochastic setting, we show that a “free-riding” agent observing another “self-reliant” agent can achieve just O(1) regret, as opposed to the regret lower bound of Ω(log t) when one decision maker is playing in isolation. This result holds whenever the self-reliant agent's strategy satisfies either one of two assumptions: (1) each arm is pulled at least γ ln t times in expectation for a constant γ that we compute, or (2) the self-reliant agent achieves o(t) realized regret with high probability. Both of these assumptions are satisfied by standard zero-regret algorithms. Under the second assumption, we further show that the free rider only needs to observe the number of times each arm is pulled by the self-reliant agent, and not the rewards realized. In the linear contextual setting, each arm has a distribution over parameter vectors, each agent has a context vector, and the reward realized when an agent pulls an arm is the inner product of that agent's context vector with a parameter vector sampled from the pulled arm's distribution. We show that the free rider can achieve O(1) regret in this setting whenever the free rider's context is a small (in L2-norm) linear combination of other agents' contexts and all other agents pull each arm Ω(log t) times with high probability. Again, this condition on the self-reliant players is satisfied by standard zero-regret algorithms like UCB. We also prove a number of lower bounds.

We consider the problem of online learning in the linear contextual bandits setting, but in which there are also strong individual fairness constraints governed by an unknown similarity metric. These constraints demand that we select similar actions or individuals with approximately equal probability DHPRZ12, which may be at odds with optimizing reward, thus modeling settings where profit and social policy are in tension. We assume we learn about an unknown Mahalanobis similarity metric from only weak feedback that identifies fairness violations, but does not quantify their extent. This is intended to represent the interventions of a regulator who "knows unfairness when he sees it" but nevertheless cannot enunciate a quantitative fairness metric over individuals. Our main result is an algorithm in the adversarial context setting that has a number of fairness violations that depends only logarithmically on T, while obtaining an optimal O(sqrt(T)) regret bound to the best fair policy.