Training and evaluation of fair classifiers is a challenging problem. This is partly due to the fact that most fairness metrics of interest depend on both the sensitive attribute information and label information of the data points. In many scenarios it is not possible to collect large datasets with such information. An alternate approach that is commonly used is to separately train an attribute classifier on data with sensitive attribute information, and then use it later in the ML pipeline to evaluate the bias of a given classifier. While such decoupling helps alleviate the problem of demographic scarcity, it raises several natural questions such as: how should the attribute classifier be trained?, and how should one use a given attribute classifier for accurate bias estimation? In this work we study this question from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. We first experimentally demonstrate that the test accuracy of the attribute classifier is not always correlated with its effectiveness in bias estimation for a downstream model. In order to further investigate this phenomenon, we analyze an idealized theoretical model and characterize the structure of the optimal classifier. Our analysis has surprising and counter-intuitive implications where in certain regimes one might want to distribute the error of the attribute classifier as unevenly as possible among the different subgroups. Based on our analysis we develop heuristics for both training and using attribute classifiers for bias estimation in the data scarce regime. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on real and simulated data.

ML models often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is underspecified when it can return many predictors with equivalently strong held-out performance in the training domain. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines, such as those based on deep learning. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We show that this problem appears in a wide variety of practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.

Much of the previous machine learning (ML) fairness literature assumes that protected features such as race and sex are present in the dataset, and relies upon them to mitigate fairness concerns. However, in practice factors like privacy and regulation often preclude the collection of protected features, or their use for training or inference, severely limiting the applicability of traditional fairness research. Therefore we ask: How can we train an ML model to improve fairness when we do not even know the protected group memberships? In this work we address this problem by proposing Adversarially Reweighted Learning (ARL). In particular, we hypothesize that non-protected features and task labels are valuable for identifying fairness issues, and can be used to co-train an adversarial reweighting approach for improving fairness. Our results show that {ARL} improves Rawlsian Max-Min fairness, with notable AUC improvements for worst-case protected groups in multiple datasets, outperforming state-of-the-art alternatives.

Robustness issues arise in a variety of forms and are studied through multiple lenses in the machine learning literature. Neural networks lack adversarial robustness -- they are vulnerable to adversarial examples that through small perturbations to inputs cause incorrect predictions. Further, trust is undermined when models give miscalibrated or unstable uncertainty estimates, i.e. the predicted probability is not a good indicator of how much we should trust our model and could vary greatly over multiple independent runs. In this paper, we study the connection between adversarial robustness, predictive uncertainty (calibration) and model uncertainty (stability) on multiple classification networks and datasets. We find that the inputs for which the model is sensitive to small perturbations (are easily attacked) are more likely to have poorly calibrated and unstable predictions. Based on this insight, we examine if calibration and stability can be improved by addressing those adversarially unrobust inputs. To this end, we propose Adversarial Robustness based Adaptive Label Smoothing (AR-AdaLS) that integrates the correlations of adversarial robustness and uncertainty into training by adaptively softening labels conditioned on how easily it can be attacked by adversarial examples. We find that our method, taking the adversarial robustness of the in-distribution data into consideration, leads to better calibration and stability over the model even under distributional shifts. In addition, AR-AdaLS can also be applied to an ensemble model to achieve the best calibration performance.

If our models are used in new or unexpected cases, do we know if they will make fair predictions? Previously, researchers developed ways to debias a model for a single problem domain. However, this is often not how models are trained and used in practice. For example, labels and demographics (sensitive attributes) are often hard to observe, resulting in auxiliary or synthetic data to be used for training, and proxies of the sensitive attribute to be used for evaluation of fairness. A model trained for one setting may be picked up and used in many others, particularly as is common with pre-training and cloud APIs. Despite the pervasiveness of these complexities, remarkably little work in the fairness literature has theoretically examined these issues. We frame all of these settings as domain adaptation problems: how can we use what we have learned in a source domain to debias in a new target domain, without directly debiasing on the target domain as if it is a completely new problem? We offer new theoretical guarantees of improving fairness across domains, and offer a modeling approach to transfer to data-sparse target domains. We give empirical results validating the theory and showing that these modeling approaches can improve fairness metrics with less data.

Distance-based hierarchical clustering (HC) methods are widely used in unsupervised data analysis but few authors take account of uncertainty in the distance data. We incorporate a statistical model of the uncertainty through corruption or noise in the pairwise distances and investigate the problem of estimating the HC as unknown parameters from measurements. Specifically, we focus on single linkage hierarchical clustering (SLHC) and study its geometry. We prove that under fairly reasonable conditions on the probability distribution governing measurements, SLHC is equivalent to maximum partial profile likelihood estimation (MPPLE) with some of the information contained in the data ignored. At the same time, we show that direct evaluation of SLHC on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of pairwise distances yields a consistent estimator. Consequently, a full MLE is expected to perform better than SLHC in getting the correct HC results for the ground truth metric.

We derive a statistical model for estimation of a dendrogram from single linkage hierarchical clustering (SLHC) that takes account of uncertainty through noise or corruption in the measurements of separation of data. Our focus is on just the estimation of the hierarchy of partitions afforded by the dendrogram, rather than the heights in the latter. The concept of estimating this "dendrogram structure'' is introduced, and an approximate maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) for the dendrogram structure is described. These ideas are illustrated by a simple Monte Carlo simulation that, at least for small data sets, suggests the method outperforms SLHC in the presence of noise.

Transfer learning algorithms are used when one has sufficient training data for one supervised learning task (the source/training domain) but only very limited training data for a second task (the target/test domain) that is similar but not identical to the first. Previous work on transfer learning has focused on relatively restricted settings, where specific parts of the model are considered to be carried over between tasks. Recent work on covariate shift focuses on matching the marginal distributions on observations $X$ across domains. Similarly, work on target/conditional shift focuses on matching marginal distributions on labels $Y$ and adjusting conditional distributions $P(X|Y)$, such that $P(X)$ can be matched across domains. However, covariate shift assumes that the support of test $P(X)$ is contained in the support of training $P(X)$, i.e., the training set is richer than the test set. Target/conditional shift makes a similar assumption for $P(Y)$. Moreover, not much work on transfer learning has considered the case when a few labels in the test domain are available. Also little work has been done when all marginal and conditional distributions are allowed to change while the changes are smooth. In this paper, we consider a general case where both the support and the model change across domains. We transform both $X$ and $Y$ by a location-scale shift to achieve transfer between tasks. Since we allow more flexible transformations, the proposed method yields better results on both synthetic data and real-world data.