Unfortunately, the notion is seriously flawed on two counts [8]. First, it doesn't ensure fairness.

Given samples lying on any of a number of subspaces, subspace clustering is the task of grouping the samples based on the their corresponding subspaces. Many subspace clustering methods operate by assigning a measure of affinity to each pair of points and feeding these affinities into a graph clustering algorithm. This paper proposes a new paradigm for subspace clustering that computes affinities based on the corresponding conic geometry. The proposed conic subspace clustering (CSC) approach considers the convex hull of a collection of normalized data points and the corresponding tangent cones. The union of subspaces underlying the data imposes a strong association between the tangent cone at a sample $x$ and the original subspace containing $x$. In addition to describing this novel geometric perspective, this paper provides a practical algorithm for subspace clustering that leverages this perspective, where a tangent cone membership test is used to estimate the affinities. This algorithm is accompanied with deterministic and stochastic guarantees on the properties of the learned affinity matrix, on the true and false positive rates and spread, which directly translate into the overall clustering accuracy.

The machine learning community has become increasingly concerned with the potential for bias and discrimination in predictive models. This has motivated a growing line of work on what it means for a classification procedure to be fair. In this paper, we investigate the tension between minimizing error disparity across different population groups while maintaining calibrated probability estimates. We show that calibration is compatible only with a single error constraint (i.e.

We propose a novel adaptive test of goodness-of-fit, with computational cost linear in the number of samples. We learn the test features that best indicate the differences between observed samples and a reference model, by minimizing the false negative rate. These features are constructed via Stein's method, meaning that it is not necessary to compute the normalising constant of the model. We analyse the asymptotic Bahadur efficiency of the new test, and prove that under a mean-shift alternative, our test always has greater relative efficiency than a previous linear-time kernel test, regardless of the choice of parameters for that test. In experiments, the performance of our method exceeds that of the earlier linear-time test, and matches or exceeds the power of a quadratic-time kernel test. In high dimensions and where model structure may be exploited, our goodness of fit test performs far better than a quadratic-time two-sample test based on the Maximum Mean Discrepancy, with samples drawn from the model.

We consider the Hypothesis Transfer Learning (HTL) problem where one incorporates a hypothesis trained on the source domain into the learning procedure of the target domain. Existing theoretical analysis either only studies specific algorithms or only presents upper bounds on the generalization error but not on the excess risk. In this paper, we propose a unified algorithm-dependent framework for HTL through a novel notion of transformation functions, which characterizes the relation between the source and the target domains. We conduct a general risk analysis of this framework and in particular, we show for the first time, if two domains are related, HTL enjoys faster convergence rates of excess risks for Kernel Smoothing and Kernel Ridge Regression than those of the classical non-transfer learning settings. We accompany this framework with an analysis of cross-validation for HTL to search for the best transfer technique and gracefully reduce to non-transfer learning when HTL is not helpful. Experiments on robotics and neural imaging data demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework.

The Equalized Odds (for short, EO) is one of the most popular measures of discrimination used in the supervised learning setting. It ascertains fairness through the balance of the misclassification rates (false positive and negative) across the protected groups -- e.g., in the context of law enforcement, an African-American defendant who would not commit a future crime will have an equal opportunity of being released, compared to a non-recidivating Caucasian defendant. Despite this noble goal, it has been acknowledged in the literature that statistical tests based on the EO are oblivious to the underlying causal mechanisms that generated the disparity in the first place (Hardt et al. 2016). This leads to a critical disconnect between statistical measures readable from the data and the meaning of discrimination in the legal system, where compelling evidence that the observed disparity is tied to a specific causal process deemed unfair by society is required to characterize discrimination. The goal of this paper is to develop a principled approach to connect the statistical disparities characterized by the EO and the underlying, elusive, and frequently unobserved, causal mechanisms that generated such inequality. We start by introducing a new family of counterfactual measures that allows one to explain the misclassification disparities in terms of the underlying mechanisms in an arbitrary, non-parametric structural causal model. This will, in turn, allow legal and data analysts to interpret currently deployed classifiers through causal lens, linking the statistical disparities found in the data to the corresponding causal processes. Leveraging the new family of counterfactual measures, we develop a learning procedure to construct a classifier that is statistically efficient, interpretable, and compatible with the basic human intuition of fairness. We demonstrate our results through experiments in both real (COMPAS) and synthetic datasets.

Your Out-of-Distribution Detection Method is Not Robust!

We study the interplay between sequential decision making and avoiding discrimination against protected groups, when examples arrive online and do not follow distributional assumptions. We consider the most basic extension of classical online learning: Given a class of predictors that are individually non-discriminatory with respect to a particular metric, how can we combine them to perform as well as the best predictor, while preserving non-discrimination? Surprisingly we show that this task is unachievable for the prevalent notion of equalized odds that requires equal false negative rates and equal false positive rates across groups. On the positive side, for another notion of non-discrimination, equalized error rates, we show that running separate instances of the classical multiplicative weights algorithm for each group achieves this guarantee. Interestingly, even for this notion, we show that algorithms with stronger performance guarantees than multiplicative weights cannot preserve non-discrimination.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates efficient mechanisms to distinguish machine-generated content from human text. While statistical watermarking has emerged as a promising solution, existing methods suffer from two critical limitations: the lack of a principled approach for selecting sampling distributions and the reliance on fixed-horizon hypothesis testing, which precludes valid early stopping. In this paper, we bridge this gap by developing the first e-value-based watermarking framework, Anchored E-Watermarking, that unifies optimal sampling with anytime-valid inference. Unlike traditional approaches where optional stopping invalidates Type-I error guarantees, our framework enables valid, anytime-inference by constructing a test supermartingale for the detection process. By leveraging an anchor distribution to approximate the target model, we characterize the optimal e-value with respect to the worst-case log-growth rate and derive the optimal expected stopping time. Our theoretical claims are substantiated by simulations and evaluations on established benchmarks, showing that our framework can significantly enhance sample efficiency, reducing the average token budget required for detection by 13-15% relative to state-of-the-art baselines.

Ninedifferentdebiasing algorithms (and a baseline) have been evaluated with this dataset using the popular ResNet-18 network[36]. CelebA contains faces of celebrities with several binary task labelsandtwoprotected labels(genderandyouth). Table 3showsthe prediction results from a biased binary classifier and its bias values using the seven metrics. Without losing generality, we consider "Sport" the positive class in the binary classifier. Following the DP formula in Appendix A.2, for the "Sport" class, thePPRfemale is 45.0% (90 /200), andPPRmale is65.0%