Selective Classification Via Neural Network Training Dynamics

Selective classification is the task of rejecting inputs a model would predict incorrectly on through a trade-off between input space coverage and model accuracy. Current methods for selective classification impose constraints on either the model architecture or the loss function; this inhibits their usage in practice. In contrast to prior work, we show that state-of-the-art selective classification performance can be attained solely from studying the (discretized) training dynamics of a model. We propose a general framework that, for a given test input, monitors metrics capturing the disagreement with the final predicted label over intermediate models obtained during training; we then reject data points exhibiting too much disagreement at late stages in training. In particular, we instantiate a method that tracks when the label predicted during training stops disagreeing with the final predicted label. Our experimental evaluation shows that our method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy/coverage trade-offs on typical selective classification benchmarks. For example, we improve coverage on CIFAR-10/SVHN by 10.1%/1.5% respectively at a fixed target error of 0.5%.

The Road to Explainability is Paved with Bias: Measuring the Fairness of Explanations

Machine learning models in safety-critical settings like healthcare are often blackboxes: they contain a large number of parameters which are not transparent to users. Post-hoc explainability methods where a simple, human-interpretable model imitates the behavior of these blackbox models are often proposed to help users trust model predictions. In this work, we audit the quality of such explanations for different protected subgroups using real data from four settings in finance, healthcare, college admissions, and the US justice system. Across two different blackbox model architectures and four popular explainability methods, we find that the approximation quality of explanation models, also known as the fidelity, differs significantly between subgroups. We also demonstrate that pairing explainability methods with recent advances in robust machine learning can improve explanation fairness in some settings. However, we highlight the importance of communicating details of non-zero fidelity gaps to users, since a single solution might not exist across all settings. Finally, we discuss the implications of unfair explanation models as a challenging and understudied problem facing the machine learning community.

Is Fairness Only Metric Deep? Evaluating and Addressing Subgroup Gaps in Deep Metric Learning

Deep metric learning (DML) enables learning with less supervision through its emphasis on the similarity structure of representations. There has been much work on improving generalization of DML in settings like zero-shot retrieval, but little is known about its implications for fairness. In this paper, we are the first to evaluate state-of-the-art DML methods trained on imbalanced data, and to show the negative impact these representations have on minority subgroup performance when used for downstream tasks. In this work, we first define fairness in DML through an analysis of three properties of the representation space -- inter-class alignment, intra-class alignment, and uniformity -- and propose finDML, the fairness in non-balanced DML benchmark to characterize representation fairness. Utilizing finDML, we find bias in DML representations to propagate to common downstream classification tasks. Surprisingly, this bias is propagated even when training data in the downstream task is re-balanced. To address this problem, we present Partial Attribute De-correlation (PARADE) to de-correlate feature representations from sensitive attributes and reduce performance gaps between subgroups in both embedding space and downstream metrics.