Calibration is a well-studied property of predictors which guarantees meaningful uncertainty estimates.

A popular approach to ensuring that probabilistic predictions from machine learning algorithms are meaningful is model calibration. Intuitively, calibration requires that amongst all samples given score p [0, 1] by an ML algorithm, exactly a p-fraction of those samples have positive label. Calibration ensures that a predictor has an accurate estimate of its own predictive uncertainty, and is a fundamental requirement in applications where probabilities may be taken into account for high-stake decisions such as disease diagnosis (Dahabreh et al., 2017) or credit/lending decisions (Bequé et al., 2017). Miscalibration can result in undesirable downstream consequences when probabilistic predictions are thresholded into decisions: if a predictor has high calibration error in disease diagnosis, for example, the individuals assigned lower predicted probabilities may be unfairly denied treatment. Calibration has a long history in the machine learning community (Guo et al., 2017; Minderer et al., 2021; Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005; Platt et al., 1999), but was arguably first introduced in fairness contexts by Cleary (1968). More recently, it has appeared in the algorithmic fairness community via the seminal works of Chouldechova (2017); Kleinberg et al. (2017). Although calibration ensures meaningful uncertainty estimates aggregated over the entire population, it does not preclude potential discrimination at the level of groups of individuals: a model may be well calibrated overall but systematically underestimate the risk or qualification probability on historically underrepresented subsets of individuals. For example, Obermeyer et al. (2019) show differing calibration error rates across groups defined by race for prediction in high-risk patient care management systems. As pointed out by Obermeyer et al. (2019), in the

Multi-source domain adaptation aims to reduce performance degradation when applying machine learning models to unseen domains. A fundamental challenge is devising the optimal strategy for feature selection. Existing literature is somewhat paradoxical: some advocate for learning invariant features from source domains, while others favor more diverse features. To address the challenge, we propose a statistical framework that distinguishes the utilities of features based on the variance of their correlation to label $y$ across domains. Under our framework, we design and analyze a learning procedure consisting of learning approximately shared feature representation from source tasks and fine-tuning it on the target task. Our theoretical analysis necessitates the importance of learning approximately shared features instead of only the strictly invariant features and yields an improved population risk compared to previous results on both source and target tasks, thus partly resolving the paradox mentioned above. Inspired by our theory, we proposed a more practical way to isolate the content (invariant+approximately shared) from environmental features and further consolidate our theoretical findings.

In the negative perceptron problem we are given $n$ data points $({\boldsymbol x}_i,y_i)$, where ${\boldsymbol x}_i$ is a $d$-dimensional vector and $y_i\in\{+1,-1\}$ is a binary label. The data are not linearly separable and hence we content ourselves to find a linear classifier with the largest possible \emph{negative} margin. In other words, we want to find a unit norm vector ${\boldsymbol \theta}$ that maximizes $\min_{i\le n}y_i\langle {\boldsymbol \theta},{\boldsymbol x}_i\rangle$. This is a non-convex optimization problem (it is equivalent to finding a maximum norm vector in a polytope), and we study its typical properties under two random models for the data. We consider the proportional asymptotics in which $n,d\to \infty$ with $n/d\to\delta$, and prove upper and lower bounds on the maximum margin $\kappa_{\text{s}}(\delta)$ or -- equivalently -- on its inverse function $\delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)$. In other words, $\delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)$ is the overparametrization threshold: for $n/d\le \delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)-\varepsilon$ a classifier achieving vanishing training error exists with high probability, while for $n/d\ge \delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)+\varepsilon$ it does not. Our bounds on $\delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)$ match to the leading order as $\kappa\to -\infty$. We then analyze a linear programming algorithm to find a solution, and characterize the corresponding threshold $\delta_{\text{lin}}(\kappa)$. We observe a gap between the interpolation threshold $\delta_{\text{s}}(\kappa)$ and the linear programming threshold $\delta_{\text{lin}}(\kappa)$, raising the question of the behavior of other algorithms.

Mixup is a regularization technique that artificially produces new samples using convex combinations of original training points. This simple technique has shown strong empirical performance, and has been heavily used as part of semi-supervised learning techniques such as mixmatch~\citep{berthelot2019mixmatch} and interpolation consistent training (ICT)~\citep{verma2019interpolation}. In this paper, we look at Mixup through a \emph{representation learning} lens in a semi-supervised learning setup. In particular, we study the role of Mixup in promoting linearity in the learned network representations. Towards this, we study two questions: (1) how does the Mixup loss that enforces linearity in the \emph{last} network layer propagate the linearity to the \emph{earlier} layers?; and (2) how does the enforcement of stronger Mixup loss on more than two data points affect the convergence of training? We empirically investigate these properties of Mixup on vision datasets such as CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and SVHN. Our results show that supervised Mixup training does not make \emph{all} the network layers linear; in fact the \emph{intermediate layers} become more non-linear during Mixup training compared to a network that is trained \emph{without} Mixup. However, when Mixup is used as an unsupervised loss, we observe that all the network layers become more linear resulting in faster training convergence.

We study time-consistency of optimization problems, where we say that an optimization problem is time-consistent if its optimal solution, or the optimal policy for choosing actions, does not depend on when the optimization problem is solved. Time-consistency is a minimal requirement on an optimization problem for the decisions made based on its solution to be rational. We show that the return that we can gain by taking "optimal" actions selected by solving a time-inconsistent optimization problem can be surely dominated by that we could gain by taking "suboptimal" actions. We establish sufficient conditions on the objective function and on the constraints for an optimization problem to be time-consistent. We also show when the sufficient conditions are necessary. Our results are relevant in stochastic settings particularly when the objective function is a risk measure other than expectation or when there is a constraint on a risk measure.