Publications

We consider a collaborative learning setting where the goal of each agent is to improve their own model by leveraging the expertise of collaborators, in addition to their own training data. To facilitate the exchange of expertise among agents, we propose a distillation-based method leveraging shared unlabeled auxiliary data, which is pseudo-labeled by the collective. Central to our method is a trust weighting scheme that serves to adaptively weigh the influence of each collaborator on the pseudo-labels until a consensus on how to label the auxiliary data is reached. We demonstrate empirically that our collaboration scheme is able to significantly boost the performance of individual models in the target domain from which the auxiliary data is sampled. By design, our method adeptly accommodates heterogeneity in model architectures and substantially reduces communication overhead compared to typical collaborative learning methods. At the same time, it can probably mitigate the negative impact of bad models on the collective.

With large language models (LLMs) appearing to behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions, it has become popular to attempt to evaluate various properties of these models using tests originally designed for humans. While re-using existing tests is a resource-efficient way to evaluate LLMs, careful adjustments are usually required to ensure that test results are even valid across human sub-populations. Thus, it is not clear to what extent different tests’ validity generalizes to LLMs. In this work, we provide evidence that LLMs’ responses to personality tests systematically deviate from typical human responses, implying that these results cannot be interpreted in the same way as human test results. Concretely, reverse-coded items (e.g. “I am introverted” vs “I am extraverted”) are often both answered affirmatively by LLMs. In addition, variation across different prompts designed to “steer” LLMs to simulate particular personality types does not follow the clear separation into five independent personality factors from human samples. In light of these results, we believe it is important to pay more attention to tests’ validity for LLMs before drawing strong conclusions about potentially ill-defined concepts like LLMs’ “personality”.

An introduction to the intellectual foundations and practical utility of the recent work on fairness and machine learning. Fairness and Machine Learning introduces advanced undergraduate and graduate students to the intellectual foundations of this recently emergent field, drawing on a diverse range of disciplinary perspectives to identify the opportunities and hazards of automated decision-making. It surveys the risks in many applications of machine learning and provides a review of an emerging set of proposed solutions, showing how even well-intentioned applications may give rise to objectionable results. It covers the statistical and causal measures used to evaluate the fairness of machine learning models as well as the procedural and substantive aspects of decision-making that are core to debates about fairness, including a review of legal and philosophical perspectives on discrimination. This incisive textbook prepares students of machine learning to do quantitative work on fairness while reflecting critically on its foundations and its practical utility.• Introduces the technical and normative foundations of fairness in automated decision-making• Covers the formal and computational methods for characterizing and addressing problems• Provides a critical assessment of their intellectual foundations and practical utility• Features rich pedagogy and extensive instructor resources

When does a machine learning model predict the future of individuals and when does it recite patterns that predate the individuals? In this work, we propose a distinction between these two pathways of prediction, supported by theoretical, empirical, and normative arguments. At the center of our proposal is a family of simple and efficient statistical tests, called backward baselines, that demonstrate if, and to what extent, a model recounts the past. Our statistical theory provides guidance for interpreting backward baselines, establishing equivalences between different baselines and familiar statistical concepts. Concretely, we derive a meaningful backward baseline for auditing a prediction system as a black box, given only background variables and the system’s predictions. Empirically, we evaluate the framework on different prediction tasks derived from longitudinal panel surveys, demonstrating the ease and effectiveness of incorporating backward baselines into the practice of machine learning.

Collaborative learning techniques have the potential to enable training machine learning models that are superior to models trained on a single entity’s data. However, in many cases, potential participants in such collaborative schemes are competitors on a downstream task, such as firms that each aim to attract customers by providing the best recommendations. This can incentivize dishonest updates that damage other participants' models, potentially undermining the benefits of collaboration. In this work, we formulate a game that models such interactions and study two learning tasks within this framework: single-round mean estimation and multi-round SGD on strongly-convex objectives. For a natural class of player actions, we show that rational clients are incentivized to strongly manipulate their updates, preventing learning. We then propose mechanisms that incentivize honest communication and ensure learning quality comparable to full cooperation. Lastly, we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our incentive scheme on a standard non-convex federated learning benchmark. Our work shows that explicitly modeling the incentives and actions of dishonest clients, rather than assuming them malicious, can enable strong robustness guarantees for collaborative learning.

As AI technology advances rapidly, concerns over the risks of bigness in digital markets are also growing. The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to address these risks. Still, the current framework may not adequately cover generative AI systems that could become gateways for AI-based services. This paper argues for integrating certain AI software as core platform services and classifying certain developers as gatekeepers under the DMA. We also propose an assessment of gatekeeper obligations to ensure they cover generative AI services. As the EU considers generative AI-specific rules and possible DMA amendments, this paper provides insights towards diversity and openness in generative AI services.

We initiate a principled study of algorithmic collective action on digital platforms that deploy machine learning algorithms. We propose a simple theoretical model of a collective interacting with a firm’s learning algorithm. The collective pools the data of participating individuals and executes an algorithmic strategy by instructing participants how to modify their own data to achieve a collective goal. We investigate the consequences of this model in three fundamental learning-theoretic settings: nonparametric optimal learning, parametric risk minimization, and gradient-based optimization. In each setting, we come up with coordinated algorithmic strategies and characterize natural success criteria as a function of the collective’s size. Complementing our theory, we conduct systematic experiments on a skill classification task involving tens of thousands of resumes from a gig platform for freelancers. Through more than two thousand model training runs of a BERT-like language model, we see a striking correspondence emerge between our empirical observations and the predictions made by our theory. Taken together, our theory and experiments broadly support the conclusion that algorithmic collectives of exceedingly small fractional size can exert significant control over a platform’s learning algorithm.

Dynamic benchmarks interweave model fitting and data collection in an attempt to mitigate the limitations of static benchmarks. In contrast to an extensive theoretical and empirical study of the static setting, the dynamic counterpart lags behind due to limited empirical studies and no apparent theoretical foundation to date. Responding to this deficit, we initiate a theoretical study of dynamic benchmarking. We examine two realizations, one capturing current practice and the other modeling more complex settings. In the first model, where data collection and model fitting alternate sequentially, we prove that model performance improves initially but can stall after only three rounds. Label noise arising from, for instance, annotator disagreement leads to even stronger negative results. Our second model generalizes the first to the case where data collection and model fitting have a hierarchical dependency structure. We show that this design guarantees strictly more progress than the first, albeit at a significant increase in complexity. We support our theoretical analysis by simulating dynamic benchmarks on two popular datasets. These results illuminate the benefits and practical limitations of dynamic benchmarking, providing both a theoretical foundation and a causal explanation for observed bottlenecks in empirical work.

Text classifiers have promising applications in high-stake tasks such as resume screening and content moderation. These classifiers must be fair and avoid discriminatory decisions by being invariant to perturbations of sensitive attributes such as gender or ethnicity. However, there is a gap between human intuition about these perturbations and the formal similarity specifications capturing them. While existing research has started to address this gap, current methods are based on hardcoded word replacements, resulting in specifications with limited expressivity or ones that fail to fully align with human intuition (e.g., in cases of asymmetric counterfactuals). This work proposes novel methods for bridging this gap by discovering expressive and intuitive individual fairness specifications. We show how to leverage unsupervised style transfer and GPT-3's zero-shot capabilities to automatically generate expressive candidate pairs of semantically similar sentences that differ along sensitive attributes. We then validate the generated pairs via an extensive crowdsourcing study, which confirms that a lot of these pairs align with human intuition about fairness in the context of toxicity classification. Finally, we show how limited amounts of human feedback can be leveraged to learn a similarity specification that can be used to train downstream fairness-aware models.

ImageNet was famously created from Flickr image search results. What if we recreated ImageNet instead by searching the massive LAION dataset based on image captions alone? In this work, we carry out this counterfactual investigation. We find that the resulting ImageNet recreation, which we call LAIONet, looks distinctly unlike the original. Specifically, the intra-class similarity of images in the original ImageNet is dramatically higher than it is for LAIONet. Consequently, models trained on ImageNet perform significantly worse on LAIONet. We propose a rigorous explanation for the discrepancy in terms of a subtle, yet important, difference in two plausible causal data-generating processes for the respective datasets, that we support with systematic experimentation. In a nutshell, searching based on an image caption alone creates an information bottleneck that mitigates the selection bias otherwise present in image-based filtering. Our explanation formalizes a long-held intuition in the community that ImageNet images are stereotypical, unnatural, and overly simple representations of the class category. At the same time, it provides a simple and actionable takeaway for future dataset creation efforts.

With large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 appearing to behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions, it has become popular to attempt to evaluate personality traits of LLMs using questionnaires originally developed for humans. While reusing measures is a resource-efficient way to evaluate LLMs, careful adaptations are usually required to ensure that assessment results are valid even across human subpopulations. In this work, we provide evidence that LLMs’ responses to personality tests systematically deviate from human responses, implying that the results of these tests cannot be interpreted in the same way. Concretely, reversecoded items (“I am introverted” vs.“I am extraverted”) are often both answered affirmatively. Furthermore, variation across prompts designed to “steer” LLMs to simulate particular personality types does not follow the clear separation into five independent personality factors from human samples. In light of these results, we believe that it is important to investigate tests’ validity for LLMs before drawing strong conclusions about potentially ill-defined concepts like LLMs’“personality”.