Improving the fairness of machine learning models is a nuanced task that requires decision makers to reason about multiple, conflicting criteria. The majority of fair machine learning methods transform the error-fairness trade-off into a single objective problem with a parameter controlling the relative importance of error versus fairness. We propose instead to directly optimize the error-fairness tradeoff by using multi-objective optimization. We present a flexible framework for defining the fair machine learning task as a weighted classification problem with multiple cost functions. This framework is agnostic to the underlying prediction model as well as the metrics. We use multiobjective optimization to define the sample weights used in model training for a given machine learner, and adapt the weights to optimize multiple metrics of fairness and accuracy across a set of tasks. To reduce the number of optimized parameters, and to constrain their complexity with respect to population subgroups, we propose a novel meta-model approach that learns to map protected attributes to sample weights, rather than optimizing those weights directly. On a set of real-world problems, this approach outperforms current state-of-the-art methods by finding solution sets with preferable error/fairness trade-offs.

The commercial use of Machine Learning (ML) is spreading; at the same time, ML models are becoming more complex and more expensive to train, which makes Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) of trained models a pressing issue. Unlike other domains that can build on a solid understanding of the threats, attacks and defenses available to protect their IP, the ML-related research in this regard is still very fragmented. This is also due to a missing unified view as well as a common taxonomy of these aspects. In this paper, we systematize our findings on IPP in ML, while focusing on threats and attacks identified and defenses proposed at the time of writing. We develop a comprehensive threat model for IP in ML, categorizing attacks and defenses within a unified and consolidated taxonomy, thus bridging research from both the ML and security communities.

We introduce dataset multiplicity, a way to study how inaccuracies, uncertainty, and social bias in training datasets impact test-time predictions. The dataset multiplicity framework asks a counterfactual question of what the set of resultant models (and associated test-time predictions) would be if we could somehow access all hypothetical, unbiased versions of the dataset. We discuss how to use this framework to encapsulate various sources of uncertainty in datasets' factualness, including systemic social bias, data collection practices, and noisy labels or features. We show how to exactly analyze the impacts of dataset multiplicity for a specific model architecture and type of uncertainty: linear models with label errors. Our empirical analysis shows that real-world datasets, under reasonable assumptions, contain many test samples whose predictions are affected by dataset multiplicity. Furthermore, the choice of domain-specific dataset multiplicity definition determines what samples are affected, and whether different demographic groups are disparately impacted. Finally, we discuss implications of dataset multiplicity for machine learning practice and research, including considerations for when model outcomes should not be trusted.

We present a multi-module framework based on Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) to detect anomalies in the power signals coming from multiple High Voltage Converter Modulators (HVCMs). We condition the model with the specific modulator type to capture different representations of the normal waveforms and to improve the sensitivity of the model to identify a specific type of fault when we have limited samples for a given module type. We studied several neural network (NN) architectures for our CVAE model and evaluated the model performance by looking at their loss landscape for stability and generalization. Our results for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) experimental data show that the trained model generalizes well to detecting multiple fault types for several HVCM module types. The results of this study can be used to improve the HVCM reliability and overall SNS uptime

Imbalanced datasets present a significant challenge for machine learning models, often leading to biased predictions. To address this issue, data augmentation techniques are widely used in natural language processing (NLP) to generate new samples for the minority class. However, in this paper, we challenge the common assumption that data augmentation is always necessary to improve predictions on imbalanced datasets. Instead, we argue that adjusting the classifier cutoffs without data augmentation can produce similar results to oversampling techniques. Our study provides theoretical and empirical evidence to support this claim. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to dealing with imbalanced data, and help researchers and practitioners make informed decisions about which methods to use for a given task.

Deploying machine learning models in production may allow adversaries to infer sensitive information about training data. There is a vast literature analyzing different types of inference risks, ranging from membership inference to reconstruction attacks. Inspired by the success of games (i.e., probabilistic experiments) to study security properties in cryptography, some authors describe privacy inference risks in machine learning using a similar game-based style. However, adversary capabilities and goals are often stated in subtly different ways from one presentation to the other, which makes it hard to relate and compose results. In this paper, we present a game-based framework to systematize the body of knowledge on privacy inference risks in machine learning. We use this framework to (1) provide a unifying structure for definitions of inference risks, (2) formally establish known relations among definitions, and (3) to uncover hitherto unknown relations that would have been difficult to spot otherwise.

People form judgments and make decisions based on the information that they observe. A growing portion of that information is not only provided, but carefully curated by social media platforms. Although lawmakers largely agree that platforms should not operate without any oversight, there is little consensus on how to regulate social media. There is consensus, however, that creating a strict, global standard of "acceptable" content is untenable (e.g., in the US, it is incompatible with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment). In this work, we propose that algorithmic filtering should be regulated with respect to a flexible, user-driven baseline. We provide a concrete framework for regulating and auditing a social media platform according to such a baseline. In particular, we introduce the notion of a baseline feed: the content that a user would see without filtering (e.g., on Twitter, this could be the chronological timeline). We require that the feeds a platform filters contain "similar" informational content as their respective baseline feeds, and we design a principled way to measure similarity. This approach is motivated by related suggestions that regulations should increase user agency. We present an auditing procedure that checks whether a platform honors this requirement. Notably, the audit needs only black-box access to a platform's filtering algorithm, and it does not access or infer private user information. We provide theoretical guarantees on the strength of the audit. We further show that requiring closeness between filtered and baseline feeds does not impose a large performance cost, nor does it create echo chambers.

Precipitation forecasts are less accurate compared to other meteorological fields because several key processes affecting precipitation distribution and intensity occur below the resolved scale of global weather prediction models. This requires to use higher resolution simulations. To generate an uncertainty prediction associated with the forecast, ensembles of simulations are run simultaneously. However, the computational cost is a limiting factor here. Thus, instead of generating an ensemble system from simulations there is a trend of using neural networks. Unfortunately the data for high resolution ensemble runs is not available. We propose a new approach to generating ensemble weather predictions for high-resolution precipitation without requiring high-resolution training data. The method uses generative adversarial networks to learn the complex patterns of precipitation and produce diverse and realistic precipitation fields, allowing to generate realistic precipitation ensemble members using only the available control forecast. We demonstrate the feasibility of generating realistic precipitation ensemble members on unseen higher resolutions. We use evaluation metrics such as RMSE, CRPS, rank histogram and ROC curves to demonstrate that our generated ensemble is almost identical to the ECMWF IFS ensemble.

Machine learning algorithms that aid human decision-making may inadvertently discriminate against certain protected groups. We formalize direct discrimination as a direct causal effect of the protected attributes on the decisions, while induced discrimination as a change in the causal influence of non-protected features associated with the protected attributes. The measurements of marginal direct effect (MDE) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) reveal that state-of-the-art fair learning methods can induce discrimination via association or reverse discrimination in synthetic and real-world datasets. To inhibit discrimination in algorithmic systems, we propose to nullify the influence of the protected attribute on the output of the system, while preserving the influence of remaining features. We introduce and study post-processing methods achieving such objectives, finding that they yield relatively high model accuracy, prevent direct discrimination, and diminishes various disparity measures, e.g., demographic disparity.

Trust is a crucial factor affecting the adoption of machine learning (ML) models. Qualitative studies have revealed that end-users, particularly in the medical domain, need models that can express their uncertainty in decision-making allowing users to know when to ignore the model's recommendations. However, existing approaches for quantifying decision-making uncertainty are not model-agnostic, or they rely on complex statistical derivations that are not easily understood by laypersons or end-users, making them less useful for explaining the model's decision-making process. This work proposes a set of class-independent meta-heuristics that can characterize the complexity of an instance in terms of factors are mutually relevant to both human and ML decision-making. The measures are integrated into a meta-learning framework that estimates the risk of misclassification. The proposed framework outperformed predicted probabilities in identifying instances at risk of being misclassified. The proposed measures and framework hold promise for improving model development for more complex instances, as well as providing a new means of model abstention and explanation.