We study differential privacy (DP) in a multi-party setting where each party only trusts a (known) subset of the other parties with its data. Specifically, given a trust graph where vertices correspond to parties and neighbors are mutually trusting, we give a DP algorithm for aggregation with a much better privacy-utility trade-off than in the well-studied local model of DP (where each party trusts no other party). We further study a robust variant where each party trusts all but an unknown subset of at most t of its neighbors (where t is a given parameter), and give an algorithm for this setting. We complement our algorithms with lower bounds, and discuss implications of our work to other tasks in private learning and analytics.

A common problem in LLM evaluation is how to choose a subset of metrics from a full suite of possible metrics. Subset selection is usually done for efficiency or interpretability reasons, and the goal is often to select a "representative" subset of metrics. However, "representative" is rarely clearly defined. In this work, we use ideas from social choice theory to formalize two notions of representation for the selection of a subset of evaluation metrics. We first introduce *positional representation*, which guarantees every alternative is sufficiently represented at every position cutoff. We then introduce *positional proportionality*, which guarantees no alternative is proportionally over- or under-represented by more than a small error at any position. We prove upper and lower bounds on the smallest number of metrics needed to guarantee either of these properties in the worst case. We also study a generalized form of each property that allows for additional input on groups of metrics that must be represented. Finally, we tie theory to practice through real-world case studies on both LLM evaluation and hospital quality evaluation.

Online platforms and regulators face a continuing problem of designing effective evaluation metrics. While tools for collecting and processing data continue to progress, this has not addressed the problem of unknown unknowns, or fundamental informational limitations on part of the evaluator. To guide the choice of metrics in the face of this informational problem, we turn to the evaluated agents themselves, who may have more information about how to measure their own outcomes. We model this interaction as an agency game, where we ask: When does an agent have an incentive to reveal the observability of a metric to their evaluator? We show that an agent will prefer to reveal metrics that differentiate the most difficult tasks from the rest, and conceal metrics that differentiate the easiest. We further show that the agent can prefer to reveal a metric *garbled* with noise over both fully concealing and fully revealing. This indicates an economic value to privacy that yields Pareto improvement for both the agent and evaluator. We demonstrate these findings on data from online rideshare platforms.

From the social sciences to machine learning, it is well documented that metrics do not always align with social welfare. In healthcare, Dranove et al. (2003) showed that publishing surgery mortality metrics actually harmed sicker patients by increasing provider selection behavior. Using a principal-agent model, we analyze the incentive misalignments that arise from such average treated outcome metrics, and show that the incentives driving treatment decisions would align with maximizing total patient welfare if the metrics (i) accounted for counterfactual untreated outcomes and (ii) considered total welfare instead of averaging over treated patients. Operationalizing this, we show how counterfactual metrics can be modified to behave reasonably in patient-facing ranking systems. Extending to realistic settings when providers observe more about patients than the regulatory agencies do, we bound the decay in performance by the degree of information asymmetry between principal and agent. In doing so, our model connects principal-agent information asymmetry with unobserved heterogeneity in causal inference.

Knowledge distillation is a popular technique that has been shown to produce remarkable gains in average accuracy. However, recent work has shown that these gains are not uniform across subgroups in the data, and can often come at the cost of accuracy on rare subgroups and classes. Robust optimization is a common remedy to improve worst-class accuracy in standard learning settings, but in distillation it is unknown whether it is best to apply robust objectives when training the teacher, the student, or both. This work studies the interplay between robust objectives for the teacher and student. Empirically, we show that that jointly modifying the teacher and student objectives can lead to better worst-class student performance and even Pareto improvement in the trade-off between worst-class and overall performance. Theoretically, we show that the per-class calibration of teacher scores is key when training a robust student. Both the theory and experiments support the surprising finding that applying a robust teacher training objective does not always yield a more robust student.

Account sharing is a common, if officially unsanctioned, practice among workgroups, but so far understudied in higher education. We interview 23 workgroup members about their account sharing practices at a U.S. university. Our study is the first to explicitly compare IT and non-IT observations of account sharing as a "normal and easy" workgroup practice, as well as to compare student practices with those of full-time employees. We contrast our results with those in prior works and offer recommendations for security design and for IT messaging. Our findings that account sharing is perceived as low risk by our participants and that security is seen as secondary to other priorities offer insights into the gap between technical affordances and social needs in an academic workplace such as this.?

Variational Inference (VI) is a popular alternative to asymptotically exact sampling in Bayesian inference. Its main workhorse is optimization over a reverse Kullback-Leibler divergence (RKL), which typically underestimates the tail of the posterior leading to miscalibration and potential degeneracy. Importance sampling (IS), on the other hand, is often used to fine-tune and de-bias the estimates of approximate Bayesian inference procedures. The quality of IS crucially depends on the choice of the proposal distribution. Ideally, the proposal distribution has heavier tails than the target, which is rarely achievable by minimizing the RKL. We thus propose a novel combination of optimization and sampling techniques for approximate Bayesian inference by constructing an IS proposal distribution through the minimization of a forward KL (FKL) divergence. This approach guarantees asymptotic consistency and a fast convergence towards both the optimal IS estimator and the optimal variational approximation. We empirically demonstrate on real data that our method is competitive with variational boosting and MCMC.

Given a classifier ensemble and a dataset, many examples may be confidently and accurately classified after only a subset of the base models in the ensemble is evaluated. Dynamically deciding to classify early can reduce both mean latency and CPU without harming the accuracy of the original ensemble. To achieve such gains, we propose jointly optimizing the evaluation order of the base models and early-stopping thresholds. Our proposed objective is a combinatorial optimization problem, but we provide a greedy algorithm that achieves a 4-approximation of the optimal solution under certain assumptions, which is also the best achievable polynomial-time approximation bound. Experiments on benchmark and real-world problems show that the proposed Quit When You Can (QWYC) algorithm can speed up average evaluation time by 1.8–2.7 times on even jointly trained ensembles, which are more difficult to speed up than independently or sequentially trained ensembles. QWYC’s joint optimization of ordering and thresholds also performed better in experiments than previous fixed orderings, including gradient boosted trees’ ordering.

We present pairwise fairness metrics for ranking models and regression models that form analogues of statistical fairness notions such as equal opportunity, equal accuracy, and statistical parity. Our pairwise formulation supports both discrete protected groups, and continuous protected attributes. We show that the resulting training problems can be efficiently and effectively solved using existing constrained optimization and robust optimization techniques developed for fair classification. Experiments illustrate the broad applicability and trade-offs of these methods.

We demonstrate how easy it is for modern machine-learned systems to violate common deontological ethical principles and social norms such as “favor the less fortunate,” and “do not penalize good attributes.” We propose that in some cases such ethical principles can be incorporated into a machine-learned model by adding shape constraints that constrain the model to respond only positively to relevant inputs. We analyze the relationship between these deontological constraints that act on individuals and the consequentialist group-based fairness goals of one-sided statistical parity and equal opportunity. This strategy works with sensitive attributes that are Boolean or real-valued such as income and age, and can help produce more responsible and trustworthy AI.

In machine learning applications such as ranking fairness or fairness over intersectional groups, one often encounters optimization problems with an extremely large number of constraints. In particular, with ranking fairness tasks, there may even be a variable number of constraints, e.g. one for each query in the training set. In these cases, the standard approach of optimizing a Lagrangian while maintaining one Lagrange multiplier per constraint may no longer be practical. Our proposal is to associate a feature vector with each constraint, and to learn a ``multiplier model’’ that maps each such vector to the corresponding Lagrange multiplier. We prove optimality, approximate feasibility and generalization guarantees under assumptions on the flexibility of the multiplier model, and empirically demonstrate that our method is effective on real-world case studies.

Many existing fairness criteria for machine learning involve equalizing some metric across protected groups such as race or gender. However, practitioners trying to audit or enforce such group-based criteria can easily face the problem of noisy or biased protected group information. First, we study the consequences of naively relying on noisy protected group labels: we provide an upper bound on the fairness violations on the true groups $G$ when the fairness criteria are satisfied on noisy groups $\hat{G}$. Second, we introduce two new approaches using robust optimization that, unlike the naive approach of only relying on $\hat{G}$, are guaranteed to satisfy fairness criteria on the true protected groups $G$ while minimizing a training objective. We provide theoretical guarantees that one such approach converges to an optimal feasible solution. Using two case studies, we show empirically that the robust approaches achieve better true group fairness guarantees than the naive approach.

Set functions predict a label from a permutation-invariant variable-size collection of feature vectors. We propose making set functions more understandable and regularized by capturing domain knowledge through shape constraints. We show how prior work in monotonic constraints can be adapted to set functions, and then propose two new shape constraints designed to generalize the conditioning role of weights in a weighted mean. We show how one can train standard functions and set functions that satisfy these shape constraints with a deep lattice network. We propose a nonlinear estimation strategy we call the semantic feature engine that uses set functions with the proposed shape constraints to estimate labels for compound sparse categorical features. Experiments on real-world data show the achieved accuracy is similar to deep sets or deep neural networks, but provides guarantees on the model behavior, which makes it easier to explain and debug.

Classifiers can be trained with data-dependent constraints to satisfy fairness goals, reduce churn, achieve a targeted false positive rate, or other policy goals. We study the generalization performance for such constrained optimization problems, in terms of how well the constraints are satisfied at evaluation time, given that they are satisfied at training time. To improve generalization, we frame the problem as a two-player game where one player optimizes the model parameters on a training dataset, and the other player enforces the constraints on an independent validation dataset. We build on recent work in two-player constrained optimization to show that if one uses this two-dataset approach, then constraint generalization can be significantly improved. As we illustrate experimentally, this approach works not only in theory, but also in practice.

We show that many machine learning goals can be expressed as “rate constraints” on a model's predictions. We study the problem of training non-convex models subject to these rate constraints (or other non-convex or non-differentiable constraints). In the non-convex setting, the standard approach of Lagrange multipliers may fail. Furthermore, if the constraints are non-differentiable, then one cannot optimize the Lagrangian with gradient-based methods. To solve these issues, we introduce a new “proxy-Lagrangian” formulation. This leads to an algorithm that, assuming access to an optimization oracle, produces a stochastic classifier by playing a two-player non-zero-sum game solving for what we call a semi-coarse correlated equilibrium, which in turn corresponds to an approximately optimal and feasible solution to the constrained optimization problem. We then give a procedure that shrinks the randomized solution down to a mixture of at most $m+1$ deterministic solutions, given $m$ constraints. This culminates in a procedure that can solve non-convex constrained optimization problems with possibly non-differentiable and non-convex constraints, and enjoys theoretical guarantees. We provide extensive experimental results covering a broad range of policy goals, including various fairness metrics, accuracy, coverage, recall, and churn.