Online controlled experiments are a crucial tool to allow for confident decision-making in technology companies. A North Star metric is defined (such as long-term revenue or user retention), and system variants that statistically significantly improve on this metric in an A/B-test can be considered superior. North Star metrics are typically delayed and insensitive. As a result, the cost of experimentation is high: experiments need to run for a long time, and even then, type-II errors (i.e. false negatives) are prevalent. We propose to tackle this by learning metrics from short-term signals that directly maximise the statistical power they harness with respect to the North Star. We show that existing approaches are prone to overfitting, in that higher average metric sensitivity does not imply improved type-II errors, and propose to instead minimise the $p$-values a metric would have produced on a log of past experiments. We collect such datasets from two social media applications with over 160 million Monthly Active Users each, totalling over 153 A/B-pairs. Empirical results show that we are able to increase statistical power by up to 78% when using our learnt metrics stand-alone, and by up to 210% when used in tandem with the North Star. Alternatively, we can obtain constant statistical power at a sample size that is down to 12% of what the North Star requires, significantly reducing the cost of experimentation.

Employee's knowledge is an organization asset. Turnover may impose apparent and hidden costs and irreparable damages. To overcome and mitigate this risk, employee's condition should be monitored. Due to high complexity of analyzing well-being features, employee's turnover predicting can be delegated to machine learning techniques. In this paper, we discuss employee's attrition rate. Three different supervised learning algorithms comprising AdaBoost, SVM and RandomForest are used to benchmark employee attrition accuracy. Attained models can help out at establishing predictive analytics.

We study how to report few-shot imitation (FSI) policies' behavior errors in novel environments, a novel task named adaptable error detection (AED). The potential to cause serious damage to surrounding areas limits the application of FSI policies in real-world scenarios. Thus, a robust system is necessary to notify operators when FSI policies are inconsistent with the intent of demonstrations. We develop a cross-domain benchmark for the challenging AED task, consisting of 329 base and 158 novel environments. This task introduces three challenges, including (1) detecting behavior errors in novel environments, (2) behavior errors occurring without revealing notable changes, and (3) lacking complete temporal information of the rollout due to the necessity of online detection. To address these challenges, we propose Pattern Observer (PrObe) to parse discernible patterns in the policy feature representations of normal or error states, whose effectiveness is verified in the proposed benchmark. Through our comprehensive evaluation, PrObe consistently surpasses strong baselines and demonstrates a robust capability to identify errors arising from a wide range of FSI policies. Moreover, we conduct comprehensive ablations and experiments (error correction, demonstration quality, etc.) to validate the practicality of our proposed task and methodology.

Machine learning algorithms may have disparate impacts on protected groups. To address this, we develop methods for Bayes-optimal fair classification, aiming to minimize classification error subject to given group fairness constraints. We introduce the notion of \emph{linear disparity measures}, which are linear functions of a probabilistic classifier; and \emph{bilinear disparity measures}, which are also linear in the group-wise regression functions. We show that several popular disparity measures -- the deviations from demographic parity, equality of opportunity, and predictive equality -- are bilinear. We find the form of Bayes-optimal fair classifiers under a single linear disparity measure, by uncovering a connection with the Neyman-Pearson lemma. For bilinear disparity measures, Bayes-optimal fair classifiers become group-wise thresholding rules. Our approach can also handle multiple fairness constraints (such as equalized odds), and the common scenario when the protected attribute cannot be used at the prediction phase. Leveraging our theoretical results, we design methods that learn fair Bayes-optimal classifiers under bilinear disparity constraints. Our methods cover three popular approaches to fairness-aware classification, via pre-processing (Fair Up- and Down-Sampling), in-processing (Fair Cost-Sensitive Classification) and post-processing (a Fair Plug-In Rule). Our methods control disparity directly while achieving near-optimal fairness-accuracy tradeoffs. We show empirically that our methods compare favorably to existing algorithms.

In this work, we introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models, one that challenges them to engage in meta-reasoning. This approach addresses critical shortcomings in existing math problem-solving benchmarks, traditionally used to evaluate the cognitive capabilities of agents. Our paradigm shifts the focus from result-oriented assessments, which often overlook the reasoning process, to a more holistic evaluation that effectively differentiates the cognitive capabilities among models. For example, in our benchmark, GPT-4 demonstrates a performance five times better than GPT3-5. The significance of this new paradigm lies in its ability to reveal potential cognitive deficiencies in LLMs that current benchmarks, such as GSM8K, fail to uncover due to their saturation and lack of effective differentiation among varying reasoning abilities. Our comprehensive analysis includes several state-of-the-art math models from both open-source and closed-source communities, uncovering fundamental deficiencies in their training and evaluation approaches. This paper not only advocates for a paradigm shift in the assessment of LLMs but also contributes to the ongoing discourse on the trajectory towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). By promoting the adoption of meta-reasoning evaluation methods similar to ours, we aim to facilitate a more accurate assessment of the true cognitive abilities of LLMs.

The challenge in biomarker discovery using machine learning from omics data lies in the abundance of molecular features but scarcity of samples. Most feature selection methods in machine learning require evaluating various sets of features (models) to determine the most effective combination. This process, typically conducted using a validation dataset, involves testing different feature sets to optimize the model's performance. Evaluations have performance estimation error and when the selection involves many models the best ones are almost certainly overestimated. Biomarker identification with feature selection methods can be addressed as a multi-objective problem with trade-offs between predictive ability and parsimony in the number of features. Genetic algorithms are a popular tool for multi-objective optimization but they evolve numerous solutions thus are prone to overestimation. Methods have been proposed to reduce the overestimation after a model has already been selected in single-objective problems, but no algorithm existed capable of reducing the overestimation during the optimization, improving model selection, or applied in the more general multi-objective domain. We propose DOSA-MO, a novel multi-objective optimization wrapper algorithm that learns how the original estimation, its variance, and the feature set size of the solutions predict the overestimation. DOSA-MO adjusts the expectation of the performance during the optimization, improving the composition of the solution set. We verify that DOSA-MO improves the performance of a state-of-the-art genetic algorithm on left-out or external sample sets, when predicting cancer subtypes and/or patient overall survival, using three transcriptomics datasets for kidney and breast cancer.

Objectives: Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with electronic health records (EHRs) holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. Yet, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to detect and mitigate diverse forms of bias in AI models developed using EHR data. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, analyzing articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE published between January 1, 2010, and Dec 17, 2023. The review identified key biases, outlined strategies for detecting and mitigating bias throughout the AI model development process, and analyzed metrics for bias assessment. Results: Of the 450 articles retrieved, 20 met our criteria, revealing six major bias types: algorithmic, confounding, implicit, measurement, selection, and temporal. The AI models were primarily developed for predictive tasks in healthcare settings. Four studies concentrated on the detection of implicit and algorithmic biases employing fairness metrics like statistical parity, equal opportunity, and predictive equity. Sixty proposed various strategies for mitigating biases, especially targeting implicit and selection biases. These strategies, evaluated through both performance (e.g., accuracy, AUROC) and fairness metrics, predominantly involved data collection and preprocessing techniques like resampling, reweighting, and transformation. Discussion: This review highlights the varied and evolving nature of strategies to address bias in EHR-based AI models, emphasizing the urgent needs for the establishment of standardized, generalizable, and interpretable methodologies to foster the creation of ethical AI systems that promote fairness and equity in healthcare.

Despite the essential need for comprehensive considerations in responsible AI, factors like robustness, fairness, and causality are often studied in isolation. Adversarial perturbation, used to identify vulnerabilities in models, and individual fairness, aiming for equitable treatment of similar individuals, despite initial differences, both depend on metrics to generate comparable input data instances. Previous attempts to define such joint metrics often lack general assumptions about data or structural causal models and were unable to reflect counterfactual proximity. To address this, our paper introduces a causal fair metric formulated based on causal structures encompassing sensitive attributes and protected causal perturbation. To enhance the practicality of our metric, we propose metric learning as a method for metric estimation and deployment in real-world problems in the absence of structural causal models. We also demonstrate the application of our novel metric in classifiers. Empirical evaluation of real-world and synthetic datasets illustrates the effectiveness of our proposed metric in achieving an accurate classifier with fairness, resilience to adversarial perturbations, and a nuanced understanding of causal relationships.

The prevalence of smart devices with the ability to capture moments in multiple modalities has enabled users to experience multimodal information online. However, large Language (LLMs) and Vision models (LVMs) are still limited in capturing holistic meaning with cross-modal semantic relationships. Without explicit, common sense knowledge (e.g., as a knowledge graph), Visual Language Models (VLMs) only learn implicit representations by capturing high-level patterns in vast corpora, missing essential contextual cross-modal cues. In this work, we design a framework to couple explicit commonsense knowledge in the form of knowledge graphs with large VLMs to improve the performance of a downstream task, predicting the effectiveness of multi-modal marketing campaigns. While the marketing application provides a compelling metric for assessing our methods, our approach enables the early detection of likely persuasive multi-modal campaigns and the assessment and augmentation of marketing theory.

We study the feasibility of identifying epistemic uncertainty (reflecting a lack of knowledge), as opposed to aleatoric uncertainty (reflecting entropy in the underlying distribution), in the outputs of large language models (LLMs) over free-form text. In the absence of ground-truth probabilities, we explore a setting where, in order to (approximately) disentangle a given LLM's uncertainty, a significantly larger model stands in as a proxy for the ground truth. We show that small linear probes trained on the embeddings of frozen, pretrained models accurately predict when larger models will be more confident at the token level and that probes trained on one text domain generalize to others. Going further, we propose a fully unsupervised method that achieves non-trivial accuracy on the same task. Taken together, we interpret these results as evidence that LLMs naturally contain internal representations of different types of uncertainty that could potentially be leveraged to devise more informative indicators of model confidence in diverse practical settings.