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.

This paper examines the diffusion of media slant, specifically how partisan content from national cable news affects local newspapers in the U.S., 2005-2008. We use a text-based measure of cable news slant trained on content from Fox News Channel (FNC), CNN, and MSNBC to analyze how local newspapers adopt FNC's slant over CNN/MSNBC's. Our findings show that local news becomes more similar to FNC content in response to an exogenous increase in local FNC viewership. This shift is not limited to borrowing from cable news, but rather, local newspapers' own content changes. Further, cable TV slant polarizes local news content.

Conventional multi-label classification (MLC) methods assume that all samples are fully labeled and identically distributed. Unfortunately, this assumption is unrealistic in large-scale MLC data that has long-tailed (LT) distribution and partial labels (PL). To address the problem, we introduce a novel task, Partial labeling and Long-Tailed Multi-Label Classification (PLT-MLC), to jointly consider the above two imperfect learning environments. Not surprisingly, we find that most LT-MLC and PL-MLC approaches fail to solve the PLT-MLC, resulting in significant performance degradation on the two proposed PLT-MLC benchmarks. Therefore, we propose an end-to-end learning framework: \textbf{CO}rrection $\rightarrow$ \textbf{M}odificat\textbf{I}on $\rightarrow$ balan\textbf{C}e, abbreviated as \textbf{\method{}}. Our bootstrapping philosophy is to simultaneously correct the missing labels (Correction) with convinced prediction confidence over a class-aware threshold and to learn from these recall labels during training. We next propose a novel multi-focal modifier loss that simultaneously addresses head-tail imbalance and positive-negative imbalance to adaptively modify the attention to different samples (Modification) under the LT class distribution. In addition, we develop a balanced training strategy by distilling the model's learning effect from head and tail samples, and thus design a balanced classifier (Balance) conditioned on the head and tail learning effect to maintain stable performance for all samples. Our experimental study shows that the proposed \method{} significantly outperforms general MLC, LT-MLC and PL-MLC methods in terms of effectiveness and robustness on our newly created PLT-MLC datasets.

Supervised learning systems are trained using historical data and, if the data was tainted by discrimination, they may unintentionally learn to discriminate against protected groups. We propose that fair learning methods, despite training on potentially discriminatory datasets, shall perform well on fair test datasets. Such dataset shifts crystallize application scenarios for specific fair learning methods. For instance, the removal of direct discrimination can be represented as a particular dataset shift problem. For this scenario, we propose a learning method that provably minimizes model error on fair datasets, while blindly training on datasets poisoned with direct additive discrimination. The method is compatible with existing legal systems and provides a solution to the widely discussed issue of protected groups' intersectionality by striking a balance between the protected groups. Technically, the method applies probabilistic interventions, has causal and counterfactual formulations, and is computationally lightweight - it can be used with any supervised learning model to prevent discrimination via proxies while maximizing model accuracy for business necessity.

The societal impact of pre-trained language models has prompted researchers to probe them for strong associations between protected attributes and value-loaded terms, from slur to prestigious job titles. Such work is said to probe models for bias or fairness-or such probes 'into representational biases' are said to be 'motivated by fairness'-suggesting an intimate connection between bias and fairness. We provide conceptual clarity by distinguishing between association biases (Caliskan et al., 2022) and empirical fairness (Shen et al., 2022) and show the two can be independent. Our main contribution, however, is showing why this should not come as a surprise. To this end, we first provide a thought experiment, showing how association bias and empirical fairness can be completely orthogonal. Next, we provide empirical evidence that there is no correlation between bias metrics and fairness metrics across the most widely used language models. Finally, we survey the sociological and psychological literature and show how this literature provides ample support for expecting these metrics to be uncorrelated.

Federated learning has attracted increasing attention due to the promise of balancing privacy and large-scale learning; numerous approaches have been proposed. However, most existing approaches focus on problems with balanced data, and prediction performance is far from satisfactory for many real-world applications where the number of samples in different classes is highly imbalanced. To address this challenging problem, we developed a novel federated learning method for imbalanced data by directly optimizing the area under curve (AUC) score. In particular, we formulate the AUC maximization problem as a federated compositional minimax optimization problem, develop a local stochastic compositional gradient descent ascent with momentum algorithm, and provide bounds on the computational and communication complexities of our algorithm. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to achieve such favorable theoretical results. Finally, extensive experimental results confirm the efficacy of our method.