Online Learning with Improving Agents: Multiclass, Budgeted Agents and Bandit Learners

We investigate the recently introduced model of learning with improvements, where agents are allowed to make small changes to their feature values to be warranted a more desirable label. We extensively extend previously published results by providing combinatorial dimensions that characterize online learnability in this model, by analyzing the multiclass setup, learnability in a bandit feedback setup, modeling agents' cost for making improvements and more.

Learning with Multiple Correct Answers -- A Trichotomy of Regret Bounds under Different Feedback Models

We study an online learning problem with multiple correct answers, where each instance admits a set of valid labels, and in each round the learner must output a valid label for the queried example. This setting is motivated by language generation tasks, in which a prompt may admit many acceptable completions, but not every completion is acceptable. We study this problem under three feedback models. For each model, we characterize the optimal mistake bound in the realizable setting using an appropriate combinatorial dimension. We then establish a trichotomy of regret bounds across the three models in the agnostic setting. Our results also imply sample complexity bounds for the batch setup that depend on the respective combinatorial dimensions.

A Novel Data-Dependent Learning Paradigm for Large Hypothesis Classes

We address the general task of learning with a set of candidate models that is too large to have a uniform convergence of empirical estimates to true losses. While the common approach to such challenges is SRM (or regularization) based learning algorithms, we propose a novel learning paradigm that relies on stronger incorporation of empirical data and requires less algorithmic decisions to be based on prior assumptions. We analyze the generalization capabilities of our approach and demonstrate its merits in several common learning assumptions, including similarity of close points, clustering of the domain into highly label-homogeneous regions, Lipschitzness assumptions of the labeling rule, and contrastive learning assumptions. Our approach allows utilizing such assumptions without the need to know their true parameters a priori.

Learning from positive and unlabeled examples -Finite size sample bounds

PU (Positive Unlabeled) learning is a variant of supervised classification learning in which the only labels revealed to the learner are of positively labeled instances. PU learning arises in many real-world applications. Most existing work relies on the simplifying assumptions that the positively labeled training data is drawn from the restriction of the data generating distribution to positively labeled instances and/or that the proportion of positively labeled points (a.k.a. the class prior) is known apriori to the learner. This paper provides a theoretical analysis of the statistical complexity of PU learning under a wider range of setups. Unlike most prior work, our study does not assume that the class prior is known to the learner. We prove upper and lower bounds on the required sample sizes (of both the positively labeled and the unlabeled samples).

Distribution Learnability and Robustness

We examine the relationship between learnability and robust (or agnostic) learnability for the problem of distribution learning. We show that, contrary to other learning settings (e.g., PAC learning of function classes), realizable learnability of a class of probability distributions does not imply its agnostic learnability. We go on to examine what type of data corruption can disrupt the learnability of a distribution class and what is such learnability robust against. We show that realizable learnability of a class of distributions implies its robust learnability with respect to only additive corruption, but not against subtractive corruption. We also explore related implications in the context of compression schemes and differentially private learnability.

Continual Learning: Applications and the Road Forward

Continual learning is a sub-field of machine learning, which aims to allow machine learning models to continuously learn on new data, by accumulating knowledge without forgetting what was learned in the past. In this work, we take a step back, and ask: "Why should one care about continual learning in the first place?". We set the stage by surveying recent continual learning papers published at three major machine learning conferences, and show that memory-constrained settings dominate the field. Then, we discuss five open problems in machine learning, and even though they seem unrelated to continual learning at first sight, we show that continual learning will inevitably be part of their solution. These problems are model-editing, personalization, on-device learning, faster (re-)training and reinforcement learning. Finally, by comparing the desiderata from these unsolved problems and the current assumptions in continual learning, we highlight and discuss four future directions for continual learning research. We hope that this work offers an interesting perspective on the future of continual learning, while displaying its potential value and the paths we have to pursue in order to make it successful. This work is the result of the many discussions the authors had at the Dagstuhl seminar on Deep Continual Learning, in March 2023.

Private Distribution Learning with Public Data: The View from Sample Compression

We study the problem of private distribution learning with access to public data. In this setup, which we refer to as public-private learning, the learner is given public and private samples drawn from an unknown distribution $p$ belonging to a class $\mathcal Q$, with the goal of outputting an estimate of $p$ while adhering to privacy constraints (here, pure differential privacy) only with respect to the private samples. We show that the public-private learnability of a class $\mathcal Q$ is connected to the existence of a sample compression scheme for $\mathcal Q$, as well as to an intermediate notion we refer to as list learning. Leveraging this connection: (1) approximately recovers previous results on Gaussians over $\mathbb R^d$; and (2) leads to new ones, including sample complexity upper bounds for arbitrary $k$-mixtures of Gaussians over $\mathbb R^d$, results for agnostic and distribution-shift resistant learners, as well as closure properties for public-private learnability under taking mixtures and products of distributions. Finally, via the connection to list learning, we show that for Gaussians in $\mathbb R^d$, at least $d$ public samples are necessary for private learnability, which is close to the known upper bound of $d+1$ public samples.

On Computable Online Learning

We initiate a study of computable online (c-online) learning, which we analyze under varying requirements for "optimality" in terms of the mistake bound. Our main contribution is to give a necessary and sufficient condition for optimal c-online learning and show that the Littlestone dimension no longer characterizes the optimal mistake bound of c-online learning. Furthermore, we introduce anytime optimal (a-optimal) online learning, a more natural conceptualization of "optimality" and a generalization of Littlestone's Standard Optimal Algorithm. We show the existence of a computational separation between a-optimal and optimal online learning, proving that a-optimal online learning is computationally more difficult. Finally, we consider online learning with no requirements for optimality, and show, under a weaker notion of computability, that the finiteness of the Littlestone dimension no longer characterizes whether a class is c-online learnable with finite mistake bound. A potential avenue for strengthening this result is suggested by exploring the relationship between c-online and CPAC learning, where we show that c-online learning is as difficult as improper CPAC learning.

Impossibility results for fair representations

With the growing awareness to fairness in machine learning and the realization of the central role that data representation has in data processing tasks, there is an obvious interest in notions of fair data representations. The goal of such representations is that a model trained on data under the representation (e.g., a classifier) will be guaranteed to respect some fairness constraints. Such representations are useful when they can be fixed for training models on various different tasks and also when they serve as data filtering between the raw data (known to the representation designer) and potentially malicious agents that use the data under the representation to learn predictive models and make decisions. A long list of recent research papers strive to provide tools for achieving these goals. However, we prove that this is basically a futile effort. Roughly stated, we prove that no representation can guarantee the fairness of classifiers for different tasks trained using it; even the basic goal of achieving label-independent Demographic Parity fairness fails once the marginal data distribution shifts. More refined notions of fairness, like Odds Equality, cannot be guaranteed by a representation that does not take into account the task specific labeling rule with respect to which such fairness will be evaluated (even if the marginal data distribution is known a priory). Furthermore, except for trivial cases, no representation can guarantee Odds Equality fairness for any two different tasks, while allowing accurate label predictions for both. While some of our conclusions are intuitive, we formulate (and prove) crisp statements of such impossibilities, often contrasting impressions conveyed by many recent works on fair representations.

Enforcing Interpretability and its Statistical Impacts: Trade-offs between Accuracy and Interpretability

To date, there has been no formal study of the statistical cost of interpretability in machine learning. As such, the discourse around potential trade-offs is often informal and misconceptions abound. In this work, we aim to initiate a formal study of these trade-offs. A seemingly insurmountable roadblock is the lack of any agreed upon definition of interpretability. Instead, we propose a shift in perspective. Rather than attempt to define interpretability, we propose to model the \emph{act} of \emph{enforcing} interpretability. As a starting point, we focus on the setting of empirical risk minimization for binary classification, and view interpretability as a constraint placed on learning. That is, we assume we are given a subset of hypothesis that are deemed to be interpretable, possibly depending on the data distribution and other aspects of the context. We then model the act of enforcing interpretability as that of performing empirical risk minimization over the set of interpretable hypotheses. This model allows us to reason about the statistical implications of enforcing interpretability, using known results in statistical learning theory. Focusing on accuracy, we perform a case analysis, explaining why one may or may not observe a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability when the restriction to interpretable classifiers does or does not come at the cost of some excess statistical risk. We close with some worked examples and some open problems, which we hope will spur further theoretical development around the tradeoffs involved in interpretability.