Fairness studies of algorithmic decision-making systems often simplify complex decision processes, such as bail or lending decisions, into binary classification tasks (e.g., approve or not approve). However, these approaches overlook that such decisions are not inherently binary; they also involve non-binary treatment decisions (e.g., loan or bail terms) that can influence the downstream outcomes (e.g., loan repayment or reoffending). We argue that treatment decisions are integral to the decision-making process and, therefore, should be central to fairness analyses. Consequently, we propose a causal framework that extends and complements existing fairness notions by explicitly distinguishing between decision-subjects’ covariates and the treatment decisions. Our framework leverages path-specific counterfactual reasoning to: (i) measure treatment disparity and its downstream effects in historical data; and (ii) mitigate the impact of past unfair treatment decisions when automating decision-making. We use our framework to empirically analyze four widely used loan approval datasets to reveal potential disparity in non-binary treatment decisions and their discriminatory impact on outcomes, highlighting the need to incorporate treatment decisions in fairness assessments. Finally, by intervening in treatment decisions, we show that our framework effectively mitigates treatment discrimination from historical loan approval data to ensure fair risk score estimation and (non-binary) decision-making processes that benefit all stakeholders.

In this paper, we focus on estimating the causal effect of an intervention over time on a dynamical system. To that end, we formally define causal interventions and their effects over time on discrete-time stochastic processes (DSPs). Then, we show under which conditions the equilibrium states of a DSP, both before and after a causal intervention, can be captured by a structural causal model (SCM). With such an equivalence at hand, we provide an explicit mapping from vector autoregressive models (VARs), broadly applied in econometrics, to linear, but potentially cyclic and/or affected by unmeasured confounders, SCMs. The resulting causal VAR framework allows us to perform causal inference over time from observational time series data. Our experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets show that the proposed framework achieves strong performance in terms of observational forecasting while enabling accurate estimation of the causal effect of interventions on dynamical systems. We demonstrate, through a case study, the potential practical questions that can be addressed using the proposed causal VAR framework.

Testing is a natural approach to assess the quality of learned action policies π. Prior work introduced policy testing in AI planning as searching for bugs in π, that is, states where π is sub-optimal with respect to a given testing objective. Beyond quality assurance, an obvious application of these methods is policy selection: given several π to choose from, we can use testing to select the "least buggy" one. Here, we integrate testing-based policy selection into the training process. This includes making more informed decisions when selecting the final policy after training, as well as choosing more promising intermediate policies during the training process. Our experiments with ASNets action policies show that integrating testing allows us to more reliably obtain good-quality policies.

Recent work has shown that successful per-domain generalizing action policies can be learned. Scaling behavior, from small training instances to large test instances, is the key objective; and the use of validation instances larger than training instances is one key to achieve it. Prior work has used fixed validation sets. Here, we introduce a method generating the validation set dynamically, on the fly, increasing instance size so long as informative and feasible. We also introduce refined methodology for evaluating scaling behavior, generating test instances systematically to guarantee a given confidence in coverage performance for each instance size. In experiments, dynamic validation improves scaling behavior of GNN policies in all 9 domains used.

We introduce a novel generative framework for functions by integrating Implicit Neural Representations (INRs) and Transformer-based hypernetworks into latent variable models. Unlike prior approaches that rely on MLP-based hypernetworks with scalability limitations, our method employs a Transformer-based decoder to generate INR parameters from latent variables, addressing both representation capacity and computational efficiency. Our framework extends latent diffusion models (LDMs) to INR generation by replacing standard decoders with a Transformer-based hypernetwork, which can be trained either from scratch or via hyper-transforming—a strategy that fine-tunes only the decoder while freezing the pre-trained latent space. This enables efficient adaptation of existing generative models to INR-based representations without requiring full retraining. We validate our approach across multiple modalities, demonstrating improved scalability, expressiveness, and generalization over existing INR-based generative models. Our findings establish a unified and flexible framework for learning structured function representations.

We introduce DeCaFlow, a deconfounding causal generative model. Training once per dataset using just observational data and the underlying causal graph, DeCaFlow enables accurate causal inference on continuous variables under the presence of hidden confounders. Specifically, we extend previous results on causal estimation under hidden confounding to show that a single instance of DeCaFlow provides correct estimates for all causal queries identifiable with do-calculus, leveraging proxy variables to adjust for the causal effects when do-calculus alone is insufficient. Moreover, we show that counterfactual queries are identifiable as long as their interventional counterparts are identifiable, and thus are also correctly estimated by DeCaFlow. Our empirical results on diverse settings—including the Ecoli70 dataset, with 3 independent hidden confounders, tens of observed variables and hundreds of causal queries—show that DeCaFlow outperforms existing approaches, while demonstrating its out-of-the-box applicability to any given causal graph.

Reinforcement learning is becoming ever more prominent in solving combinatorial search problems, in particular ones where states are images. Prior work has devised action-policy testing methodology, that identifies so-called bug states where policy performance is sub-optimal. Here we show how to leverage this methodology during the RL process, using action-policy testing to find bugs and injecting those as alternate start states for the training runs. Running experiments across six 2D games, we find that our testing-guided training often achieves similar expected reward while reducing the number of bugs.

Neural population responses in sensory systems are driven by external physical stimuli. This stimulus-response relationship is typically characterized by receptive fields, which have been estimated by neural system identification approaches. Such models usually require a large amount of training data, yet, the recording time for animal experiments is limited, giving rise to epistemic uncertainty for the learned neural transfer functions. While deep neural network models have demonstrated excellent power on neural prediction, they usually do not provide the uncertainty of the resulting neural representations and derived statistics, such as most exciting inputs (MEIs), from in silico experiments. Here, we present a Bayesian system identification approach to predict neural responses to visual stimuli, and explore whether explicitly modeling network weight variability can be beneficial for identifying neural response properties. To this end, we use variational inference to estimate the posterior distribution of each model weight given the training data. Tests with different neural datasets demonstrate that this method can achieve higher or comparable performance on neural prediction, with a much higher data efficiency compared to Monte Carlo dropout methods and traditional models using point estimates of the model parameters. At the same time, our variational method provides us with an effectively infinite ensemble, avoiding the idiosyncrasy of any single model, to generate MEIs. This allows us to estimate the uncertainty of stimulus-response function, which we have found to be negatively correlated with the predictive performance at model level and may serve to evaluate models. Furthermore, our approach enables us to identify response properties with credible intervals and to determine whether the inferred features are meaningful by performing statistical tests on MEIs. Finally, in silico experiments show that our model generates stimuli driving neuronal activity significantly better than traditional models in the limited-data regime.

Recent approaches build on implicit neural representations (INRs) to propose generative models over function spaces. However, they are computationally costly when dealing with inference tasks, such as missing data imputation, or directly cannot tackle them. In this work, we propose a novel deep generative model, named VaMoH. VaMoH combines the capabilities of modeling continuous functions using INRs and the inference capabilities of Variational Autoencoders (VAEs). In addition, VaMoH relies on a normalizing flow to define the prior, and a mixture of hypernetworks to parametrize the data log-likelihood. This gives VaMoH a high expressive capability and interpretability. Through experiments on a diverse range of data types, such as images, voxels, and climate data, we show that VaMoH can effectively learn rich distributions over continuous functions. Furthermore, it can perform inference-related tasks, such as conditional super-resolution generation and in-painting, as well or better than previous approaches, while being less computationally demanding.

In this work, we deepen on the use of normalizing flows for causal reasoning. Specifically, we first leverage recent results on non-linear ICA to show that causal models are identifiable from observational data given a causal ordering, and thus can be recovered using autoregressive normalizing flows (NFs). Second, we analyze different design and learning choices for *causal normalizing flows* to capture the underlying causal data-generating process. Third, we describe how to implement the *do-operator* in causal NFs, and thus, how to answer interventional and counterfactual questions. Finally, in our experiments, we validate our design and training choices through a comprehensive ablation study; compare causal NFs to other approaches for approximating causal models; and empirically demonstrate that causal NFs can be used to address real-world problems—where the presence of mixed discrete-continuous data and partial knowledge on the causal graph is the norm. The code for this work can be found at https://github.com/psanch21/causal-flows.

Algorithmic fairness is typically studied from the perspective of predictions. Instead, here we investigate fairness from the perspective of recourse actions suggested to individuals to remedy an unfavourable classification. We propose two new fair-ness criteria at the group and individual level, which—unlike prior work on equalising the average group-wise distance from the decision boundary—explicitly account for causal relationships between features, thereby capturing downstream effects of recourse actions performed in the physical world. We explore how our criteria relate to others, such as counterfactual fairness, and show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We study theoretically and empirically how to enforce fair causal recourse by altering the classifier and perform a case study on the Adult dataset. Finally, we discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions as opposed to constraints on the classifier.

In this paper, we introduce VACA, a novel class of variational graph autoencoders for causal inference in the absence of hidden confounders, when only observational data and the causal graph are available. Without making any parametric assumptions, VACA mimics the necessary properties of a Structural Causal Model (SCM) to provide a flexible and practical framework for approximating interventions (do-operator) and abduction-action-prediction steps. As a result, and as shown by our empirical results, VACA accurately approximates the interventional and counterfactual distributions on diverse SCMs. Finally, we apply VACA to evaluate counterfactual fairness in fair classification problems, as well as to learn fair classifiers without compromising performance.

A number of variational autoencoders (VAEs) have recently emerged with the aim of modeling multimodal data, e.g., to jointly model images and their corresponding captions. Still, multimodal VAEs tend to focus solely on a subset of the modalities, e.g., by fitting the image while neglecting the caption. We refer to this limitation as modality collapse. In this work, we argue that this effect is a consequence of conflicting gradients during multimodal VAE training. We show how to detect the sub-graphs in the computational graphs where gradients conflict (impartiality blocks), as well as how to leverage existing gradient-conflict solutions from multitask learning to mitigate modality collapse. That is, to ensure impartial optimization across modalities. We apply our training framework to several multimodal VAE models, losses and datasets from the literature, and empirically show that our framework significantly improves the reconstruction performance, conditional generation, and coherence of the latent space across modalities.

Counterfactual explanations (CFE) are being widely used to explain algorithmic decisions, especially in consequential decision-making contexts (e.g., loan approval or pretrial bail). In this context, CFEs aim to provide individuals affected by an algorithmic decision with the most similar individual (i.e., nearest individual) with a different outcome. However, while an increasing number of works propose algorithms to compute CFEs, such approaches either lack in optimality of distance (i.e., they do not return the nearest individual) and perfect coverage (i.e., they do not provide a CFE for all individuals); or they do not scale to complex models such as neural networks. In this work, we provide a framework based on Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP) to compute nearest counterfactual explanations for the outcomes of neural networks, with both provable guarantees and runtimes comparable to gradient-based approaches. Our experiments on the Adult, COMPAS, and Credit datasets show that, in contrast with previous methods, our approach allows for efficiently computing diverse CFEs with both distance guarantees and perfect coverage.

Algorithmic decision systems are increasingly used in areas such as hiring, school admission, or loan approval. Typically, these systems rely on labeled data for training a classification model. However, in many scenarios, ground-truth labels are unavailable, and instead we have only access to imperfect labels as the result of (potentially biased) human-made decisions. Despite being imperfect, historical decisions often contain some useful information on the unobserved true labels. In this paper, we focus on scenarios where only imperfect labels are available and propose a new fair ranking-based decision system based on monotonic relationships between legitimate features and the outcome. Our approach is both intuitive and easy to implement, and thus particularly suitable for adoption in real-world settings. More in detail, we introduce a distance-based decision criterion, which incorporates useful information from historical decisions and accounts for unwanted correlation between protected and legitimate features. Through extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world data, we show that our method is fair in the sense that a) it assigns the desirable outcome to the most qualified individuals, and b) it removes the effect of stereotypes in decision-making, thereby outperforming traditional classification algorithms. Additionally, we are able to show theoretically that our method is consistent with a prominent concept of individual fairness which states that “similar individuals should be treated similarly.”

Predictive models are being increasingly used to support consequential decision making at the individual level in contexts such as pretrial bail and loan approval. As a result, there is increasing social and legal pressure to provide explanations that help the affected individuals not only to understand why a prediction was output, but also how to act to obtain a desired outcome. To this end, several works have proposed optimization-based methods to generate nearest counterfactual explanations. However, these methods are often restricted to a particular subset of models (e.g., decision trees or linear models) and differentiable distance functions. In contrast, we build on standard theory and tools from formal verification and propose a novel algorithm that solves a sequence of satisfiability problems, where both the distance function (objective) and predictive model (constraints) are represented as logic formulae. As shown by our experiments on real-world data, our algorithm is: i) model-agnostic ({non-}linear, {non-}differentiable, {non-}convex); ii) data-type-agnostic (heterogeneous features); iii) distance-agnostic (l0, l1, l8, and combinations thereof); iv) able to generate plausible and diverse counterfactuals for any sample (i.e., 100% coverage); and v) at provably optimal distances.

Consequential decisions are increasingly informed by sophisticated data-driven predictive models. However, consistently learning accurate predictive models requires access to ground truth labels. Unfortunately, in practice, labels may only exist conditional on certain decisions—if a loan is denied, there is not even an option for the individual to pay back the loan. In this paper, we show that, in this selective labels setting, learning to predict is suboptimal in terms of both fairness and utility. To avoid this undesirable behavior, we propose to directly learn stochastic decision policies that maximize utility under fairness constraints. In the context of fair machine learning, our results suggest the need for a paradigm shift from "learning to predict" to "learning to decide". Experiments on synthetic and real-world data illustrate the favorable properties of learning to decide, in terms of both utility and fairness.

Recent work has discussed the limitations of counterfactual explanations to recommend actions for algorithmic recourse, and argued for the need of taking causal relationships between features into consideration. Unfortunately, in practice, the true underlying structural causal model is generally unknown. In this work, we first show that it is impossible to guarantee recourse without access to the true structural equations. To address this limitation, we propose two probabilistic approaches to select optimal actions that achieve recourse with high probability given limited causal knowledge (e.g., only the causal graph). The first captures uncertainty over structural equations under additive Gaussian noise, and uses Bayesian model averaging to estimate the counterfactual distribution. The second removes any assumptions on the structural equations by instead computing the average effect of recourse actions on individuals similar to the person who seeks recourse, leading to a novel subpopulation-based interventional notion of recourse. We then derive a gradient-based procedure for selecting optimal recourse actions, and empirically show that the proposed approaches lead to more reliable recommendations under imperfect causal knowledge than non-probabilistic baselines.

Latent variable models allow capturing the hidden structure underlying the data. In particular, feature allocation models represent each observation by a linear combination of latent variables. These models are often used to make predictions either for new observations or for missing information in the original data, as well as to perform exploratory data analysis. Although there is an extensive literature on latent feature allocation models for homogeneous datasets, where all the attributes that describe each object are of the same (continuous or discrete) type, there is no general framework for practical latent feature modeling for heterogeneous datasets. In this paper, we introduce a general Bayesian nonparametric latent feature allocation model suitable for heterogeneous datasets, where the attributes describing each object can be arbitrary combinations of real-valued, positive real-valued, categorical, ordinal and count variables. The proposed model presents several important properties. First, it is suitable for heterogeneous data while keeping the properties of conjugate models, which enables us to develop an inference algorithm that presents linear complexity with respect to the number of objects and attributes per MCMC iteration. Second, the Bayesian nonparametric component allows us to place a prior distribution on the number of features required to capture the latent structure in the data. Third, the latent features in the model are binary-valued, which facilitates the interpretability of the obtained latent features in exploratory data analysis. Finally, a software package, called GLFM toolbox, is made publicly available for other researchers to use and extend. It is available at https://ivaleram.github.io/GLFM/. We show the flexibility of the proposed model by solving both prediction and data analysis tasks on several real-world datasets.

There is currently a great expansion of the impact of machine learning algorithms on our lives, prompting the need for objectives other than pure performance, including fairness. Fairness here means that the outcome of an automated decisionmaking system should not discriminate between subgroups characterized by sensitive attributes such as gender or race. Given any existing differentiable classifier, we make only slight adjustments to the architecture including adding a new hidden layer, in order to enable the concurrent adversarial optimization for fairness and accuracy. Our framework provides one way to quantify the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy, while also leading to strong empirical performance.

Making sense of a dataset in an automatic and unsupervised fashion is a challenging problem in statistics and AI. Classical approaches for exploratory data analysis are usually not flexible enough to deal with the uncertainty inherent to real-world data: they are often restricted to fixed latent interaction models and homogeneous likelihoods; they are sensitive to missing, corrupt and anomalous data; moreover, their expressiveness generally comes at the price of intractable inference. As a result, supervision from statisticians is usually needed to find the right model for the data. However, since domain experts are not necessarily also experts in statistics, we propose Automatic Bayesian Density Analysis (ABDA) to make exploratory data analysis accessible at large. Specifically, ABDA allows for automatic and efficient missing value estimation, statistical data type and likelihood discovery, anomaly detection and dependency structure mining, on top of providing accurate density estimation. Extensive empirical evidence shows that ABDA is a suitable tool for automatic exploratory analysis of mixed continuous and discrete tabular data.

Algorithmic decision making is employed in an increasing number of real-world applicationstions to aid human decision making. While it has shown considerable promise in terms of improved decision accuracy, in some scenarios, its outcomes have been also shown to impose an unfair (dis)advantage on people from certain social groups (e.g., women, blacks). In this context, there is a need for computational techniques to limit unfairness in algorithmic decision making. In this work, we take a step forward to fulfill that need and introduce a flexible constraint-based framework to enable the design of fair margin-based classifiers. The main technical innovation of our framework is a general and intuitive measure of decision boundary unfairness, which serves as a tractable proxy to several of the most popular computational definitions of unfairness from the literature. Leveraging our measure, we can reduce the design of fair margin-based classifiers to adding tractable constraints on their decision boundaries. Experiments on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets show that our framework is able to successfully limit unfairness, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.

Approximating a probability density in a tractable manner is a central task in Bayesian statistics. Variational Inference (VI) is a popular technique that achieves tractability by choosing a relatively simple variational approximation. Borrowing ideas from the classic boosting framework, recent approaches attempt to \emph{boost} VI by replacing the selection of a single density with an iteratively constructed mixture of densities. In order to guarantee convergence, previous works impose stringent assumptions that require significant effort for practitioners. Specifically, they require a custom implementation of the greedy step (called the LMO) for every probabilistic model with respect to an unnatural variational family of truncated distributions. Our work fixes these issues with novel theoretical and algorithmic insights. On the theoretical side, we show that boosting VI satisfies a relaxed smoothness assumption which is sufficient for the convergence of the functional Frank-Wolfe (FW) algorithm. Furthermore, we rephrase the LMO problem and propose to maximize the Residual ELBO (RELBO) which replaces the standard ELBO optimization in VI. These theoretical enhancements allow for black box implementation of the boosting subroutine. Finally, we present a stopping criterion drawn from the duality gap in the classic FW analyses and exhaustive experiments to illustrate the usefulness of our theoretical and algorithmic contributions.

Societies often rely on human experts to take a wide variety of decisions affecting their members, from jail-or-release decisions taken by judges and stop-and-frisk decisions taken by police officers to accept-or-reject decisions taken by academics. In this context, each decision is taken by an expert who is typically chosen uniformly at random from a pool of experts. However, these decisions may be imperfect due to limited experience, implicit biases, or faulty probabilistic reasoning. Can we improve the accuracy and fairness of the overall decision making process by optimizing the assignment between experts and decisions? In this paper, we address the above problem from the perspective of sequential decision making and show that, for different fairness notions from the literature, it reduces to a sequence of (constrained) weighted bipartite matchings, which can be solved efficiently using algorithms with approximation guarantees. Moreover, these algorithms also benefit from posterior sampling to actively trade off exploitation---selecting expert assignments which lead to accurate and fair decisions---and exploration---selecting expert assignments to learn about the experts' preferences and biases. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithms on both synthetic and real-world data and show that they can significantly improve both the accuracy and fairness of the decisions taken by pools of experts.

Algorithmic decision making systems are ubiquitous across a wide variety of online as well as offline services. These systems rely on complex learning methods and vast amounts of data to optimize the service functionality, satisfaction of the end user and profitability. However, there is a growing concern that these automated decisions can lead, even in the absence of intent, to a lack of fairness, i.e., their outcomes can disproportionately hurt (or, benefit) particular groups of people sharing one or more sensitive attributes (e.g., race, sex). In this paper, we introduce a flexible mechanism to design fair classifiers by leveraging a novel intuitive measure of decision boundary (un)fairness. We instantiate this mechanism with two well-known classifiers, logistic regression and support vector machines, and show on real-world data that our mechanism allows for a fine-grained control on the degree of fairness, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.

A common practice in statistics and machine learning is to assume that the statistical data types (e.g., ordinal, categorical or real-valued) of variables, and usually also the likelihood model, is known. However, as the availability of real-world data increases, this assumption becomes too restrictive. Data are often heterogeneous, complex, and improperly or incompletely documented. Surprisingly, despite their practical importance, there is still a lack of tools to automatically discover the statistical types of, as well as appropriate likelihood (noise) models for, the variables in a dataset. In this paper, we fill this gap by proposing a Bayesian method, which accurately discovers the statistical data types in both synthetic and real data.

The adoption of automated, data-driven decision making in an ever expanding range of applications has raised concerns about its potential unfairness towards certain social groups. In this context, a number of recent studies have focused on defining, detecting, and removing unfairness from data-driven decision systems. However, the existing notions of fairness, based on parity (equality) in treatment or outcomes for different social groups, tend to be quite stringent, limiting the overall decision making accuracy. In this paper, we draw inspiration from the fair-division and envy-freeness literature in economics and game theory and propose preference-based notions of fairness -- given the choice between various sets of decision treatments or outcomes, any group of users would collectively prefer its treatment or outcomes, regardless of the (dis)parity as compared to the other groups. Then, we introduce tractable proxies to design margin-based classifiers that satisfy these preference-based notions of fairness. Finally, we experiment with a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets and show that preference-based fairness allows for greater decision accuracy than parity-based fairness.

Learning from the crowd has become increasingly popular in the Web and social media. There is a wide variety of crowdlearning sites in which, on the one hand, users learn from the knowledge that other users contribute to the site, and, on the other hand, knowledge is reviewed and curated by the same users using assessment measures such as upvotes or likes. In this paper, we present a probabilistic modeling framework of crowdlearning, which uncovers the evolution of a user's expertise over time by leveraging other users' assessments of her contributions. The model allows for both off-site and on-site learning and captures forgetting of knowledge. We then develop a scalable estimation method to fit the model parameters from millions of recorded learning and contributing events. We show the effectiveness of our model by tracing activity of ~25 thousand users in Stack Overflow over a 4.5 year period. We find that answers with high knowledge value are rare. Newbies and experts tend to acquire less knowledge than users in the middle range. Prolific learners tend to be also proficient contributors that post answers with high knowledge value.

People are increasingly relying on social media and the Web to find solutions to their problems in a wide range of domains. In this setting, closely related problems often lead to the same characteristic learning pattern --- people sharing a similar problem visit closely related pieces of information, perform almost identical queries or, more generally, take a series of similar actions at a similar pace. In this paper, we introduce a novel modeling framework for clustering continuous-time grouped streaming data, the Hierarchical Dirichlet Hawkes process (HDHP), which allows us to automatically uncover a wide variety of learning patterns from detailed traces of learning activity. Our model allows for efficient inference, scaling to millions of actions and thousands of users. Experiments on real data from Stack Overflow reveal that our framework recovers meaningful learning patterns, accurately tracks users' interests and goals over time and achieves better predictive performance than the state of the art.

Online knowledge repositories typically rely on their users or dedicated editors to evaluate the reliability of their contents. These explicit feedback mechanisms can be viewed as noisy measurements of both information reliability and information source trustworthiness. Can we leverage these noisy measurements, often biased, to distill a robust, unbiased and interpretable measure of both notions?

Automated data-driven decision making systems are increasingly being used to assist, or even replace humans in many settings. These systems function by learning from historical decisions, often taken by humans. In order to maximize the utility of these systems (or, classifiers), their training involves minimizing the errors (or, misclassifications) over the given historical data. However, it is quite possible that the optimally trained classifier makes decisions for people belonging to different social groups with different misclassification rates (e.g., misclassification rates for females are higher than for males), thereby placing these groups at an unfair disadvantage. To account for and avoid such unfairness, in this paper, we introduce a new notion of unfairness, disparate mistreatment, which is defined in terms of misclassification rates. We then propose intuitive measures of disparate mistreatment for decision boundary-based classifiers, which can be easily incorporated into their formulation as convex-concave constraints. Experiments on synthetic as well as real world datasets show that our methodology is effective at avoiding disparate mistreatment, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.

Social media and social networking sites have become a global pinboard for exposition and discussion of news, topics, and ideas, where social media users often update their opinions about a particular topic by learning from the opinions shared by their friends. In this context, can we learn a data-driven model of opinion dynamics that is able to accurately forecast users' opinions? In this paper, we introduce SLANT, a probabilistic modeling framework of opinion dynamics, which represents users' opinions over time by means of marked jump diffusion stochastic differential equations, and allows for efficient model simulation and parameter estimation from historical fine grained event data. We then leverage our framework to derive a set of efficient predictive formulas for opinion forecasting and identify conditions under which opinions converge to a steady state. Experiments on data gathered from Twitter show that our model provides a good fit to the data and our formulas achieve more accurate forecasting than alternatives.

Social media sites are information marketplaces, where users produce and consume a wide variety of information and ideas. In these sites, users typically choose their information sources, which in turn determine what specific information they receive, how much information they receive and how quickly this information is shown to them. In this context, a natural question that arises is how efficient are social media users at selecting their information sources. In this work, we propose a computational framework to quantify users' efficiency at selecting information sources. Our framework is based on the assumption that the goal of users is to acquire a set of unique pieces of information. To quantify user's efficiency, we ask if the user could have acquired the same pieces of information from another set of sources more efficiently. We define three different notions of efficiency -- link, in-flow, and delay -- corresponding to the number of sources the user follows, the amount of (redundant) information she acquires and the delay with which she receives the information. Our definitions of efficiency are general and applicable to any social media system with an underlying in- formation network, in which every user follows others to receive the information they produce.

We aim at finding the comorbidity patterns of substance abuse, mood and personality disorders using the diagnoses from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions database. To this end, we propose a novel Bayesian nonparametric latent feature model for categorical observations, based on the Indian buffet process, in which the latent variables can take values between 0 and 1. The proposed model has several interesting features for modeling psychiatric disorders. First, the latent features might be off, which allows distinguishing between the subjects who suffer a condition and those who do not. Second, the active latent features take positive values, which allows modeling the extent to which the patient has that condition. We also develop a new Markov chain Monte Carlo inference algorithm for our model that makes use of a nested expectation propagation procedure.

There are many scenarios in artificial intelligence, signal processing or medicine, in which a temporal sequence consists of several unknown overlapping independent causes, and we are interested in accurately recovering those canonical causes. Factorial hidden Markov models (FHMMs) present the versatility to provide a good fit to these scenarios. However, in some scenarios, the number of causes or the number of states of the FHMM cannot be known or limited a priori. In this paper, we propose an infinite factorial unbounded-state hidden Markov model (IFUHMM), in which the number of parallel hidden Markovmodels (HMMs) and states in each HMM are potentially unbounded. We rely on a Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) prior over integer-valued matrices, in which the columns represent the Markov chains, the rows the time indexes, and the integers the state for each chain and time instant. First, we extend the existent infinite factorial binary-state HMM to allow for any number of states. Then, we modify this model to allow for an unbounded number of states and derive an MCMC-based inference algorithm that properly deals with the trade-off between the unbounded number of states and chains. We illustrate the performance of our proposed models in the power disaggregation problem.

The emergence and wide-spread use of online social networks has led to a dramatic increase on the availability of social activity data. Importantly, this data can be exploited to investigate, at a microscopic level, some of the problems that have captured the attention of economists, marketers and sociologists for decades, such as, e.g., product adoption, usage and competition. In this paper, we propose a continuous-time probabilistic model, based on temporal point processes, for the adoption and frequency of use of competing products, where the frequency of use of one product can be modulated by those of others. This model allows us to efficiently simulate the adoption and recurrent usages of competing products, and generate traces in which we can easily recognize the effect of social influence, recency and competition. We then develop an inference method to efficiently fit the model parameters by solving a convex program. The problem decouples into a collection of smaller subproblems, thus scaling easily to networks with hundred of thousands of nodes. We validate our model over synthetic and real diffusion data gathered from Twitter, and show that the proposed model does not only provides a good fit to the data and more accurate predictions than alternatives but also provides interpretable model parameters, which allow us to gain insights into some of the factors driving product adoption and frequency of use.

We propose the infinite factorial dynamic model (iFDM), a general Bayesian nonparametric model for source separation. Our model builds on the Markov Indian buffet process to consider a potentially unbounded number of hidden Markov chains (sources) that evolve independently according to some dynamics, in which the state space can be either discrete or continuous. For posterior inference, we develop an algorithm based on particle Gibbs with ancestor sampling that can be efficiently applied to a wide range of source separation problems. We evaluate the performance of our iFDM on four well-known applications: multitarget tracking, cocktail party, power disaggregation, and multiuser detection. Our experimental results show that our approach for source separation does not only outperform previous approaches, but it can also handle problems that were computationally intractable for existing approaches.

The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) database contains a large amount of information, regarding the way of life, medical conditions, depression, etc., of a representative sample of the U.S. population. In the present paper, we are interested in seeking the hidden causes behind the suicide attempts, for which we propose to model the subjects using a nonparametric latent model based on the Indian Buffet Process (IBP). Due to the nature of the data, we need to adapt the observation model for discrete random variables. We propose a generative model in which the observations are drawn from a multinomial-logit distribution given the IBP matrix. The implementation of an efficient Gibbs sampler is accomplished using the Laplace approximation, which allows us to integrate out the weighting factors of the multinomial-logit likelihood model. Finally, the experiments over the NESARC database show that our model properly captures some of the hidden causes that model suicide attempts.