Language model alignment is a critical step in training modern generative language models. Alignment targets to improve win rate of a sample from the aligned model against the base model. Today, we are increasingly using inference-time algorithms (e.g., Best-of-$N$ , controlled decoding, tree search) to decode from language models rather than standard sampling. We show that this train/test mismatch makes standard RLHF framework sub-optimal in view of such inference-time methods. To this end, we propose a framework for inference-aware alignment (InfAlign), which aims to optimize *inference-time win rate* of the aligned policy against the base model. We prove that for any inference-time decoding procedure, the optimal aligned policy is the solution to the standard RLHF problem with a *transformation* of the reward. This motivates us to provide the calibrate-and-transform RL (InfAlign-CTRL) algorithm to solve this problem, which involves a reward calibration step and a KL-regularized reward maximization step with a transformation of the calibrated reward. For best-of-$N$ sampling and best-of-$N$ jailbreaking, we propose specific transformations offering up to 3-8% improvement on inference-time win rates. Finally, we also show that our proposed reward calibration method is a strong baseline for optimizing standard win rate.

Despite achieving promising fairness-error trade-offs, in-processing mitigation techniques for group fairness cannot be employed in numerous practical applications with limited computation resources or no access to the training pipeline of the prediction model. In these situations, post-processing is a viable alternative. However, current methods are tailored to specific problem settings and fairness definitions and hence, are not as broadly applicable as in-processing. In this work, we propose a framework that turns any regularized in-processing method into a post-processing approach. This procedure prescribes a way to obtain post-processing techniques for a much broader range of problem settings than the prior post-processing literature. We show theoretically and through extensive experiments that our framework preserves the good fairness-error trade-offs achieved with in-processing and can improve over the effectiveness of prior post-processing methods. Finally, we demonstrate several advantages of a modular mitigation strategy that disentangles the training of the prediction model from the fairness mitigation, including better performance on tasks with partial group labels.

In this work we study the problem of measuring the fairness of a machine learning model under noisy information. Focusing on group fairness metrics, we investigate the particular but common situation when the evaluation requires controlling for the confounding effect of covariate variables. In a practical setting, we might not be able to jointly observe the covariate and group information, and a standard workaround is to then use proxies for one or more of these variables. Prior works have demonstrated the challenges with using a proxy for sensitive attributes, and strong independence assumptions are needed to provide guarantees on the accuracy of the noisy estimates. In contrast, in this work we study using a proxy for the covariate variable and present a theoretical analysis that aims to characterize weaker conditions under which accurate fairness evaluation is possible. Furthermore, our theory identifies potential sources of errors and decouples them into two interpretable parts y and E. The first part y depends solely on the performance of the proxy such as precision and recall, whereas the second part E captures correlations between all the variables of interest. We show that in many scenarios the error in the estimates is dominated by y via a linear dependence, whereas the dependence on the correlations E only constitutes a lower order term. As a result we expand the understanding of scenarios where measuring model fairness via proxies can be an effective approach. Finally, we compare, via simulations, the theoretical upper-bounds to the distribution of simulated estimation errors and show that assuming some structure on the data, even weak, is key to significantly improve both theoretical guarantees and empirical results.

As multi-task models gain popularity in a wider range of machine learning applications, it is becoming increasingly important for practitioners to understand the fairness implications associated with those models. Most existing fairness literature focuses on learning a single task more fairly, while how ML fairness interacts with multiple tasks in the joint learning setting is largely under-explored. In this paper, we are concerned with how group fairness (e.g., equal opportunity, equalized odds) as an ML fairness concept plays out in the multi-task scenario. In multi-task learning, several tasks are learned jointly to exploit task correlations for a more efficient inductive transfer. This presents a multi-dimensional Pareto frontier on (1) the trade-off between group fairness and accuracy with respect to each task, as well as (2) the trade-offs across multiple tasks. We aim to provide a deeper understanding on how group fairness interacts with accuracy in multi-task learning, and we show that traditional approaches that mainly focus on optimizing the Pareto frontier of multi-task accuracy might not perform well on fairness goals. We propose a new set of metrics to better capture the multi-dimensional Pareto frontier of fairness-accuracy trade-offs uniquely presented in a multi-task learning setting. We further propose a Multi-Task-Aware Fairness (MTA-F) approach to improve fairness in multi-task learning. Experiments on several real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach.

How can we build recommender systems to take into account fairness? Real-world recommender systems are often composed of multiple models, built by multiple teams. However, most research on fairness focuses on improving fairness in a single model. Further, recent research on classification fairness has shown that combining multiple "fair" classifiers can still result in an "unfair" classification system. This presents a significant challenge: how do we understand and improve fairness in recommender systems composed of multiple components?

Much of the previous machine learning (ML) fairness literature assumes that protected features such as race and sex are present in the dataset, and relies upon them to mitigate fairness concerns. However, in practice factors like privacy and regulation often preclude the collection of protected features, or their use for training or inference, severely limiting the applicability of traditional fairness research. Therefore, we ask: How can we train a ML model to improve fairness when we do not even know the protected group memberships? In this work we address this problem by proposing Adversarially Reweighted Learning (ARL). In particular, we hypothesize that non-protected features and task labels are valuable for identifying fairness issues, and can be used to co-train an adversarial reweighting approach for improving fairness. Our results show that ARL improves Rawlsian Max-Min fairness, with notable AUC improvements for worst-case protected groups in multiple datasets, outperforming state-of-the-art alternatives.