Deploying machine learning models in safety-critical domains poses a key challenge: ensuring reliable model performance on downstream user data without access to ground truth labels for direct validation. We propose the _suitability filter_, a novel framework designed to detect performance deterioration by utilizing _suitability signals_—model output features that are sensitive to covariate shifts and indicative of potential prediction errors. The suitability filter evaluates whether classifier accuracy on unlabeled user data shows significant degradation compared to the accuracy measured on the labeled test dataset. Specifically, it ensures that this degradation does not exceed a pre-specified margin, which represents the maximum acceptable drop in accuracy. To achieve reliable performance evaluation, we aggregate suitability signals for both test and user data and compare these empirical distributions using statistical hypothesis testing, thus providing insights into decision uncertainty. Our modular method adapts to various models and domains. Empirical evaluations across different classification tasks demonstrate that the suitability filter reliably detects performance deviations due to covariate shift. This enables proactive mitigation of potential failures in high-stakes applications.

Cautious predictions—where a machine learning model abstains when uncertain—are crucial for limiting harmful errors in safety-critical applications. In this work, we identify a novel threat: a dishonest institution can exploit these mechanisms to discriminate or unjustly deny services under the guise of uncertainty. We demonstrate the practicality of this threat by introducing an uncertainty-inducing attack called Mirage, which deliberately reduces confidence in targeted input regions, thereby covertly disadvantaging specific individuals. At the same time, Mirage maintains high predictive performance across all data points. To counter this threat, we propose Confidential Guardian, a framework that analyzes calibration metrics on a reference dataset to detect artificially suppressed confidence. Additionally, it employs zero-knowledge proofs of verified inference to ensure that reported confidence scores genuinely originate from the deployed model. This prevents the provider from fabricating arbitrary model confidence values while protecting the model’s proprietary details. Our results confirm that Confidential Guardian effectively prevents the misuse of cautious predictions, providing verifiable assurances that abstention reflects genuine model uncertainty rather than malicious intent.

Selective classifiers improve model reliability by abstaining on inputs the model deems uncertain. However, few practical approaches achieve the gold-standard performance of a perfect-ordering oracle that accepts examples exactly in order of correctness. Our work formalizes this shortfall as the selective-classification gap and present the first finite-sample decomposition of this gap to five distinct sources of looseness: Bayes noise, approximation error, ranking error, statistical noise, and implementation- or shift-induced slack. Our analysis reveals that monotone post-hoc calibration—often believed to strengthen selective classifiers—has limited impact on closing this gap, since it rarely alters the model’s underlying score ranking. Bridging the gap therefore requires scoring mechanisms that can effectively reorder predictions rather than merely rescale them. We validate our decomposition on synthetic two-moons data and on real-world vision and language benchmarks, isolating each error component through controlled experiments. Our results show that (i) Bayes noise and limited model capacity can account for substantial gaps, (ii) only non-monotone or feature-aware calibrators consistently reduce the ranking term, and (iii) distribution shift introduces a separate slack that demands distributionally robust training. Together, our decomposition yields a quantitative error budget as well as actionable design guidelines that practitioners can use to build selective classifiers which approximate ideal oracle behavior more closely.

Large-scale machine learning models deliver strong performance across a wide range of tasks but come with significant computational and resource constraints. To mitigate these challenges, local smaller models are often deployed alongside larger models, relying on routing and deferral mechanisms to offload complex tasks. However, existing approaches inadequately balance the capabilities of these models, often resulting in unnecessary deferrals or sub-optimal resource usage. In this work, we introduce a novel loss function called Gatekeeper for calibrating smaller models in cascade setups. Our approach fine-tunes the smaller model to confidently handle tasks it can perform correctly while deferring complex tasks to the larger model. Moreover, it incorporates a mechanism for managing the trade-off between model performance and deferral accuracy and is broadly applicable across various tasks and domains without any architectural changes. We evaluated our method on encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder architectures. Experiments across image classification, language modeling, and vision-language tasks show that our approach substantially improves deferral performance.

Collaborative machine learning (ML) is widely used to enable institutions to learn better models from distributed data. While collaborative approaches to learning intuitively protect user data, they remain vulnerable to either the server, the clients, or both, deviating from the protocol. Indeed, because the protocol is asymmetric, a malicious server can abuse its power to reconstruct client data points. Conversely, malicious clients can corrupt learning with malicious updates. Thus, both clients and servers require a guarantee when the other cannot be trusted to fully cooperate. In this work, we propose a peer-to-peer (P2P) learning scheme that is secure against malicious servers and robust to malicious clients. Our core contribution is a generic framework that transforms any (compatible) algorithm for robust aggregation of model updates to the setting where servers and clients can act maliciously. Finally, we demonstrate the computational efficiency of our approach even with 1-million parameter models trained by 100s of peers on standard datasets.

Training reliable deep learning models which avoid making overconfident but incorrect predictions is a longstanding challenge. This challenge is further exacerbated when learning has to be differentially private: protection provided to sensitive data comes at the price of injecting additional randomness into the learning process. In this work, we conduct a thorough empirical investigation of selective classifiers---that can abstain under uncertainty---under a differential privacy constraint. We find that some popular selective prediction approaches are ineffective in a differentially private setting because they increase the risk of privacy leakage. At the same time, we identify that a recent approach that only uses checkpoints produced by an off-the-shelf private learning algorithm stands out as particularly suitable under DP. Further, we show that differential privacy does not just harm utility but also degrades selective classification performance. To analyze this effect across privacy levels, we propose a novel evaluation mechanism which isolates selective prediction performance across model utility levels at full coverage. Our experimental results show that recovering the performance level attainable by non-private models is possible but comes at a considerable coverage cost as the privacy budget decreases.

We might hope that when faced with unexpected inputs, well-designed software systems would fire off warnings. Machine learning (ML) systems, however, which depend strongly on properties of their inputs (e.g. the i.i.d. assumption), tend to fail silently. This paper explores the problem of building ML systems that fail loudly, investigating methods for detecting dataset shift, identifying exemplars that most typify the shift, and quantifying shift malignancy. We focus on several datasets and various perturbations to both covariates and label distributions with varying magnitudes and fractions of data affected. Interestingly, we show that across the dataset shifts that we explore, a two-sample-testing-based approach, using pre-trained classifiers for dimensionality reduction, performs best. Moreover, we demonstrate that domain-discriminating approaches tend to be helpful for characterizing shifts qualitatively and determining if they are harmful.