With increasing deployment of machine learning systems in various real-world tasks, there is a greater need for accurate quantification of predictive uncertainty. While the common goal in uncertainty quantification (UQ) in machine learning is to approximate the true distribution of the target data, many works in UQ tend to be disjoint in the evaluation metrics utilized, and disparate implementations for each metric lead to numerical results that are not directly comparable across different works. To address this, we introduce Uncertainty Toolbox, an open-source python library that helps to assess, visualize, and improve UQ. Uncertainty Toolbox additionally provides pedagogical resources, such as a glossary of key terms and an organized collection of key paper references. We hope that this toolbox is useful for accelerating and uniting research efforts in uncertainty in machine learning.

Existing observational approaches for learning human preferences, such as inverse reinforcement learning, usually make strong assumptions about the observability of the human's environment. However, in reality, people make many important decisions under uncertainty. To better understand preference learning in these cases, we study the setting of inverse decision theory (IDT), a previously proposed framework where a human is observed making non-sequential binary decisions under uncertainty. In IDT, the human's preferences are conveyed through their loss function, which expresses a tradeoff between different types of mistakes. We give the first statistical analysis of IDT, providing conditions necessary to identify these preferences and characterizing the sample complexity -- the number of decisions that must be observed to learn the tradeoff the human is making to a desired precision. Interestingly, we show that it is actually easier to identify preferences when the decision problem is more uncertain. Furthermore, uncertain decision problems allow us to relax the unrealistic assumption that the human is an optimal decision maker but still identify their exact preferences; we give sample complexities in this suboptimal case as well. Our analysis contradicts the intuition that partial observability should make preference learning more difficult. It also provides a first step towards understanding and improving preference learning methods for uncertain and suboptimal humans.

Among the many ways of quantifying uncertainty in a regression setting, specifying the full quantile function is attractive, as quantiles are amenable to interpretation and evaluation. A model that predicts the true conditional quantiles for each input, at all quantile levels, presents a correct and efficient representation of the underlying uncertainty. To achieve this, many current quantile-based methods focus on optimizing the so-called pinball loss. However, this loss restricts the scope of applicable regression models, limits the ability to target many desirable properties (e.g. calibration, sharpness, centered intervals), and may produce poor conditional quantiles. In this work, we develop new quantile methods that address these shortcomings. In particular, we propose methods that can apply to any class of regression model, allow for selecting a Pareto-optimal trade-off between calibration and sharpness, optimize for calibration of centered intervals, and produce more accurate conditional quantiles. We provide a thorough experimental evaluation of our methods, which includes a high dimensional uncertainty quantification task in nuclear fusion.

Machine learning applications often require calibrated predictions, e.g. a 90\% credible interval should contain the true outcome 90\% of the times. However, typical definitions of calibration only require this to hold on average, and offer no guarantees on predictions made on individual samples. Thus, predictions can be systematically over or under confident on certain subgroups, leading to issues of fairness and potential vulnerabilities. We show that calibration for individual samples is possible in the regression setup if the predictions are randomized, i.e. outputting randomized credible intervals. Randomization removes systematic bias by trading off bias with variance. We design a training objective to enforce individual calibration and use it to train randomized regression functions. The resulting models are more calibrated for arbitrarily chosen subgroups of the data, and can achieve higher utility in decision making against adversaries that exploit miscalibrated predictions.

In recent years, academics and investigative journalists have criticized certain commercial risk assessments for their black-box nature and failure to satisfy competing notions of fairness. Since then, the field of interpretable machine learning has created simple yet effective algorithms, while the field of fair machine learning has proposed various mathematical definitions of fairness. However, studies from these fields are largely independent, despite the fact that many applications of machine learning to social issues require both fairness and interpretability. We explore the intersection by revisiting the recidivism prediction problem using state-of-the-art tools from interpretable machine learning, and assessing the models for performance, interpretability, and fairness. Unlike previous works, we compare against two existing risk assessments (COMPAS and the Arnold Public Safety Assessment) and train models that output probabilities rather than binary predictions. We present multiple models that beat these risk assessments in performance, and provide a fairness analysis of these models. Our results imply that machine learning models should be trained separately for separate locations, and updated over time.

We clarify what fairness guarantees we can and cannot expect to follow from unconstrained machine learning. Specifically, we characterize when unconstrained learning on its own implies group calibration, that is, the outcome variable is conditionally independent of group membership given the score. We show that under reasonable conditions, the deviation from satisfying group calibration is upper bounded by the excess risk of the learned score relative to the Bayes optimal score function. A lower bound confirms the optimality of our upper bound. Moreover, we prove that as the excess risk of the learned score decreases, it strongly violates separation and independence, two other standard fairness criteria. Our results show that group calibration is the fairness criterion that unconstrained learning implicitly favors. On the one hand, this means that calibration is often satisfied on its own without the need for active intervention, albeit at the cost of violating other criteria that are at odds with calibration. On the other hand, it suggests that we should be satisfied with calibration as a fairness criterion only if we are at ease with the use of unconstrained machine learning in a given application.