Calibrated Data-Dependent Constraints with Exact Satisfaction Guarantees

We consider the task of training machine learning models with data-dependent constraints. Such constraints often arise as empirical versions of expected value constraints that enforce fairness or stability goals. We reformulate data-dependent constraints so that they are calibrated: enforcing the reformulated constraints guarantees that their expected value counterparts are satisfied with a user-prescribed probability. The resulting optimization problem is amendable to standard stochastic optimization algorithms, and we demonstrate the efficacy of our method on a fairness-sensitive classification task where we wish to guarantee the classifier's fairness (at test time).

How does overparametrization affect performance on minority groups?

The benefits of overparameterization for the overall performance of modern machine learning (ML) models are well known. However, the effect of overparameterization at a more granular level of data subgroups is less understood. Recent empirical studies demonstrate encouraging results: (i) when groups are not known, overparameterized models trained with empirical risk minimization (ERM) perform better on minority groups; (ii) when groups are known, ERM on data subsampled to equalize group sizes yields state-of-the-art worst-group-accuracy in the overparameterized regime. In this paper, we complement these empirical studies with a theoretical investigation of the risk of overparameterized random feature models on minority groups. In a setting in which the regression functions for the majority and minority groups are different, we show that overparameterization always improves minority group performance.

Statistical inference for individual fairness

As we rely on machine learning (ML) models to make more consequential decisions, the issue of ML models perpetuating or even exacerbating undesirable historical biases (e.g., gender and racial biases) has come to the fore of the public's attention. In this paper, we focus on the problem of detecting violations of individual fairness in ML models. We formalize the problem as measuring the susceptibility of ML models against a form of adversarial attack and develop a suite of inference tools for the adversarial cost function. The tools allow auditors to assess the individual fairness of ML models in a statistically-principled way: form confidence intervals for the worst-case performance differential between similar individuals and test hypotheses of model fairness with (asymptotic) non-coverage/Type I error rate control. We demonstrate the utility of our tools in a real-world case study.

Auditing ML Models for Individual Bias and Unfairness

We consider the task of auditing ML models for individual bias/unfairness. We formalize the task in an optimization problem and develop a suite of inferential tools for the optimal value. Our tools permit us to obtain asymptotic confidence intervals and hypothesis tests that cover the target/control the Type I error rate exactly. To demonstrate the utility of our tools, we use them to reveal the gender and racial biases in Northpointe's COMPAS recidivism prediction instrument.