Prompt Risk Control: A Rigorous Framework for Responsible Deployment of Large Language Models

The recent explosion in the capabilities of large language models has led to a wave of interest in how best to prompt a model to perform a given task. While it may be tempting to simply choose a prompt based on average performance on a validation set, this can lead to a deployment where unexpectedly poor responses are generated, especially for the worst-off users. To mitigate this prospect, we propose Prompt Risk Control, a lightweight framework for selecting a prompt based on rigorous upper bounds on families of informative risk measures. We offer methods for producing bounds on a diverse set of metrics, including quantities that measure worst-case responses and disparities in generation quality across the population of users. In addition, we extend the underlying statistical bounding techniques to accommodate the possibility of distribution shifts in deployment. Experiments on applications such as open-ended chat, medical question summarization, and code generation highlight how such a framework can foster responsible deployment by reducing the risk of the worst outcomes.

Distribution-Free Statistical Dispersion Control for Societal Applications

Explicit finite-sample statistical guarantees on model performance are an important ingredient in responsible machine learning. Previous work has focused mainly on bounding either the expected loss of a predictor or the probability that an individual prediction will incur a loss value in a specified range. However, for many high-stakes applications, it is crucial to understand and control the dispersion of a loss distribution, or the extent to which different members of a population experience unequal effects of algorithmic decisions. We initiate the study of distribution-free control of statistical dispersion measures with societal implications and propose a simple yet flexible framework that allows us to handle a much richer class of statistical functionals beyond previous work. Our methods are verified through experiments in toxic comment detection, medical imaging, and film recommendation.

Stability is Stable: Connections between Replicability, Privacy, and Adaptive Generalization

The notion of replicable algorithms was introduced in Impagliazzo et al. [STOC '22] to describe randomized algorithms that are stable under the resampling of their inputs. More precisely, a replicable algorithm gives the same output with high probability when its randomness is fixed and it is run on a new i.i.d. sample drawn from the same distribution. Using replicable algorithms for data analysis can facilitate the verification of published results by ensuring that the results of an analysis will be the same with high probability, even when that analysis is performed on a new data set. In this work, we establish new connections and separations between replicability and standard notions of algorithmic stability. In particular, we give sample-efficient algorithmic reductions between perfect generalization, approximate differential privacy, and replicability for a broad class of statistical problems. Conversely, we show any such equivalence must break down computationally: there exist statistical problems that are easy under differential privacy, but that cannot be solved replicably without breaking public-key cryptography. Furthermore, these results are tight: our reductions are statistically optimal, and we show that any computational separation between DP and replicability must imply the existence of one-way functions. Our statistical reductions give a new algorithmic framework for translating between notions of stability, which we instantiate to answer several open questions in replicability and privacy. This includes giving sample-efficient replicable algorithms for various PAC learning, distribution estimation, and distribution testing problems, algorithmic amplification of $\delta$ in approximate DP, conversions from item-level to user-level privacy, and the existence of private agnostic-to-realizable learning reductions under structured distributions.

Quantile Risk Control: A Flexible Framework for Bounding the Probability of High-Loss Predictions

Rigorous guarantees about the performance of predictive algorithms are necessary in order to ensure their responsible use. Previous work has largely focused on bounding the expected loss of a predictor, but this is not sufficient in many risk-sensitive applications where the distribution of errors is important. In this work, we propose a flexible framework to produce a family of bounds on quantiles of the loss distribution incurred by a predictor. Our method takes advantage of the order statistics of the observed loss values rather than relying on the sample mean alone. We show that a quantile is an informative way of quantifying predictive performance, and that our framework applies to a variety of quantile-based metrics, each targeting important subsets of the data distribution. We analyze the theoretical properties of our proposed method and demonstrate its ability to rigorously control loss quantiles on several real-world datasets.

Learning versus Refutation in Noninteractive Local Differential Privacy

We study two basic statistical tasks in non-interactive local differential privacy (LDP): learning and refutation. Learning requires finding a concept that best fits an unknown target function (from labelled samples drawn from a distribution), whereas refutation requires distinguishing between data distributions that are well-correlated with some concept in the class, versus distributions where the labels are random. Our main result is a complete characterization of the sample complexity of agnostic PAC learning for non-interactive LDP protocols. We show that the optimal sample complexity for any concept class is captured by the approximate $\gamma_2$~norm of a natural matrix associated with the class. Combined with previous work [Edmonds, Nikolov and Ullman, 2019] this gives an equivalence between learning and refutation in the agnostic setting.

Reproducibility in Learning

We introduce the notion of a reproducible algorithm in the context of learning. A reproducible learning algorithm is resilient to variations in its samples -- with high probability, it returns the exact same output when run on two samples from the same underlying distribution. We begin by unpacking the definition, clarifying how randomness is instrumental in balancing accuracy and reproducibility. We initiate a theory of reproducible algorithms, showing how reproducibility implies desirable properties such as data reuse and efficient testability. Despite the exceedingly strong demand of reproducibility, there are efficient reproducible algorithms for several fundamental problems in statistics and learning. First, we show that any statistical query algorithm can be made reproducible with a modest increase in sample complexity, and we use this to construct reproducible algorithms for finding approximate heavy-hitters and medians. Using these ideas, we give the first reproducible algorithm for learning halfspaces via a reproducible weak learner and a reproducible boosting algorithm. Finally, we initiate the study of lower bounds and inherent tradeoffs for reproducible algorithms, giving nearly tight sample complexity upper and lower bounds for reproducible versus nonreproducible SQ algorithms.

Size and Depth Separation in Approximating Natural Functions with Neural Networks

When studying the expressive power of neural networks, a main challenge is to understand how the size and depth of the network affect its ability to approximate real functions. However, not all functions are interesting from a practical viewpoint: functions of interest usually have a polynomially-bounded Lipschitz constant, and can be computed efficiently. We call functions that satisfy these conditions "natural", and explore the benefits of size and depth for approximation of natural functions with ReLU networks. As we show, this problem is more challenging than the corresponding problem for non-natural functions. We give barriers to showing depth-lower-bounds: Proving existence of a natural function that cannot be approximated by polynomial-size networks of depth $4$ would settle longstanding open problems in computational complexity. It implies that beyond depth $4$ there is a barrier to showing depth-separation for natural functions, even between networks of constant depth and networks of nonconstant depth. We also study size-separation, namely, whether there are natural functions that can be approximated with networks of size $O(s(d))$, but not with networks of size $O(s'(d))$. We show a complexity-theoretic barrier to proving such results beyond size $O(d\log^2(d))$, but also show an explicit natural function, that can be approximated with networks of size $O(d)$ and not with networks of size $o(d/\log d)$. For approximation in $L_\infty$ we achieve such separation already between size $O(d)$ and size $o(d)$. Moreover, we show superpolynomial size lower bounds and barriers to such lower bounds, depending on the assumptions on the function. Our size-separation results rely on an analysis of size lower bounds for Boolean functions, which is of independent interest: We show linear size lower bounds for computing explicit Boolean functions with neural networks and threshold circuits.

Theoretical bounds on estimation error for meta-learning

Machine learning models have traditionally been developed under the assumption that the training and test distributions match exactly. However, recent success in few-shot learning and related problems are encouraging signs that these models can be adapted to more realistic settings where train and test distributions differ. Unfortunately, there is severely limited theoretical support for these algorithms and little is known about the difficulty of these problems. In this work, we provide novel information-theoretic lower-bounds on minimax rates of convergence for algorithms that are trained on data from multiple sources and tested on novel data. Our bounds depend intuitively on the information shared between sources of data, and characterize the difficulty of learning in this setting for arbitrary algorithms. We demonstrate these bounds on a hierarchical Bayesian model of meta-learning, computing both upper and lower bounds on parameter estimation via maximum-a-posteriori inference.

Causal Modeling for Fairness in Dynamical Systems

In this work, we present causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) as a unifying framework for the recent literature on fairness in dynamical systems. We advocate for the use of causal DAGs as a tool in both designing equitable policies and estimating their impacts. By visualizing models of dynamic unfairness graphically, we expose implicit causal assumptions which can then be more easily interpreted and scrutinized by domain experts. We demonstrate that this method of reinterpretation can be used to critique the robustness of an existing model/policy, or uncover new policy evaluation questions. Causal models also enable a rich set of options for evaluating a new candidate policy without incurring the risk of implementing the policy in the real world. We close the paper with causal analyses of several models from the recent literature, and provide an in-depth case study to demonstrate the utility of causal DAGs for modeling fairness in dynamical systems.