We prove that every randomized Boolean function admits a supersimulator: a randomized polynomial-size circuit whose output on random inputs cannot be efficiently distinguished from reality with constant advantage, even by polynomially larger distinguishers. Our result builds on the landmark complexity-theoretic regularity lemma of Trevisan, Tulsiani and Vadhan (2009), which, in contrast, provides a simulator that fools smaller distinguishers. We circumvent lower bounds for the simulator size by letting the distinguisher size bound vary with the target function, while remaining below an absolute upper bound independent of the target function. This dependence on the target function arises naturally from our use of an iteration technique originating in the graph regularity literature. The simulators provided by the regularity lemma and recent refinements thereof, known as multiaccurate and multicalibrated predictors, respectively, as per Hebert-Johnson et al. (2018), have previously been shown to have myriad applications in complexity theory, cryptography, learning theory, and beyond. We first show that a recent multicalibration-based characterization of the computational indistinguishability of product distributions actually requires only (calibrated) multiaccuracy. We then show that supersimulators yield an even tighter result in this application domain, closing a complexity gap present in prior versions of the characterization.

We consider the problem of constructing probabilistic predictions that lead to accurate decisions when employed by downstream users to inform actions. For a single decision maker, designing an optimal predictor is equivalent to minimizing a proper loss function corresponding to the negative utility of that individual. For multiple decision makers, our problem can be viewed as a variant of omniprediction in which the goal is to design a single predictor that simultaneously minimizes multiple losses. Existing algorithms for achieving omniprediction broadly fall into two categories: 1) boosting methods that optimize other auxiliary targets such as multicalibration and obtain omniprediction as a corollary, and 2) adversarial two-player game based approaches that estimate and respond to the ``worst-case" loss in an online fashion. We give lower bounds demonstrating that multicalibration is a strictly more difficult problem than omniprediction and thus the former approach must incur suboptimal sample complexity. For the latter approach, we discuss how these ideas can be used to obtain a sample-efficient algorithm through an online-to-batch conversion. This conversion has the downside of returning a complex, randomized predictor. We improve on this method by designing a more direct, unrandomized algorithm that exploits structural elements of the set of proper losses.

Calibration is a critical property for establishing the trustworthiness of predictors that provide uncertainty estimates. Multicalibration is a strengthening of calibration which requires that predictors be calibrated on a potentially overlapping collection of subsets of the domain. As multicalibration grows in popularity with practitioners, an essential question is: how do we measure how multicalibrated a predictor is? Błasiok et al. (2023) considered this question for standard calibration by introducing the distance to calibration framework (dCE) to understand how calibration metrics relate to each other and the ground truth. Building on the dCE framework, we consider the auditability of the distance to multicalibration of a predictor $f$. We begin by considering two natural generalizations of dCE to multiple subgroups: worst group dCE (wdMC), and distance to multicalibration (dMC). We argue that there are two essential properties of any multicalibration error metric: 1) the metric should capture how much $f$ would need to be modified in order to be perfectly multicalibrated; and 2) the metric should be auditable in an information theoretic sense. We show that wdMC and dMC each fail to satisfy one of these two properties, and that similar barriers arise when considering the auditability of general distance to multigroup fairness notions. We then propose two (equivalent) multicalibration metrics which do satisfy these requirements: 1) a continuized variant of dMC; and 2) a distance to intersection multicalibration, which leans on intersectional fairness desiderata. Along the way, we shed light on the loss-landscape of distance to multicalibration and the geometry of the set of perfectly multicalibrated predictors. Our findings may have implications for the development of stronger multicalibration algorithms as well as multigroup auditing more generally.

Pseudoentropy characterizations provide a quantitatively precise demonstration of the close relationship between computational hardness and computational randomness. We prove a unified pseudoentropy characterization that generalizes and strengthens previous results for both uniform and non-uniform models of computation. Our characterization holds for a general family of entropy notions that encompasses the common notions of Shannon entropy and min entropy as special cases. Moreover, we show that the characterizations for different entropy notions can be simultaneously achieved by a single, universal function that simultaneously witnesses computational hardness and computational randomness. A key technical insight of our work is that the notion of weight-restricted calibration from the recent literature on algorithm fairness, along with standard computational indistinguishability (known as multiaccuracy in the fairness literature), suffices for proving pseudoentropy characterizations for general entropy notions. This demonstrates the power of weight-restricted calibration to enhance the classic Complexity-Theoretic Regularity Lemma (Trevisan, Tulsiani, and Vadhan, 2009) and Leakage Simulation Lemma (Jetchev and Pietrzak, 2014) and allows us to achieve an exponential improvement in the complexity dependency on the alphabet size compared to the pseudoentropy characterizations by Casacuberta, Dwork, and Vadhan (2024) based on the much stronger notion of multicalibration. We show that the exponential dependency on the alphabet size is inevitable for multicalibration as well as for the weaker notion of calibrated multiaccuracy.

Multiaccuracy and multicalibration are multigroup fairness notions for prediction that have found numerous applications in learning and computational complexity. They can be achieved from a single learning primitive: weak agnostic learning. Here we investigate the power of multiaccuracy as a learning primitive, both with and without the additional assumption of calibration. We find that multiaccuracy in itself is rather weak, but that the addition of global calibration (this notion is called calibrated multiaccuracy) boosts its power substantially, enough to recover implications that were previously known only assuming the stronger notion of multicalibration. We give evidence that multiaccuracy might not be as powerful as standard weak agnostic learning, by showing that there is no way to post-process a multiaccurate predictor to get a weak learner, even assuming the best hypothesis has correlation $1/2$. Rather, we show that it yields a restricted form of weak agnostic learning, which requires some concept in the class to have correlation greater than $1/2$ with the labels. However, by also requiring the predictor to be calibrated, we recover not just weak, but strong agnostic learning. A similar picture emerges when we consider the derivation of hardcore measures from predictors satisfying multigroup fairness notions. On the one hand, while multiaccuracy only yields hardcore measures of density half the optimal, we show that (a weighted version of) calibrated multiaccuracy achieves optimal density. Our results yield new insights into the complementary roles played by multiaccuracy and calibration in each setting. They shed light on why multiaccuracy and global calibration, although not particularly powerful by themselves, together yield considerably stronger notions.

To address the shortcomings of real-world datasets, robust learning algorithms have been designed to overcome arbitrary and indiscriminate data corruption. However, practical processes of gathering data may lead to patterns of data corruption that are localized to specific partitions of the training dataset. Motivated by critical applications where the learned model is deployed to make predictions about people from a rich collection of overlapping subpopulations, we initiate the study of multigroup robust algorithms whose robustness guarantees for each subpopulation only degrade with the amount of data corruption inside that subpopulation. When the data corruption is not distributed uniformly over subpopulations, our algorithms provide more meaningful robustness guarantees than standard guarantees that are oblivious to how the data corruption and the affected subpopulations are related. Our techniques establish a new connection between multigroup fairness and robustness.

Consider the supervised learning setting where the goal is to learn to predict labels $\mathbf y$ given points $\mathbf x$ from a distribution. An \textit{omnipredictor} for a class $\mathcal L$ of loss functions and a class $\mathcal C$ of hypotheses is a predictor whose predictions incur less expected loss than the best hypothesis in $\mathcal C$ for every loss in $\mathcal L$. Since the work of [GKR+21] that introduced the notion, there has been a large body of work in the setting of binary labels where $\mathbf y \in \{0, 1\}$, but much less is known about the regression setting where $\mathbf y \in [0,1]$ can be continuous. Our main conceptual contribution is the notion of \textit{sufficient statistics} for loss minimization over a family of loss functions: these are a set of statistics about a distribution such that knowing them allows one to take actions that minimize the expected loss for any loss in the family. The notion of sufficient statistics relates directly to the approximate rank of the family of loss functions. Our key technical contribution is a bound of $O(1/\varepsilon^{2/3})$ on the $\epsilon$-approximate rank of convex, Lipschitz functions on the interval $[0,1]$, which we show is tight up to a factor of $\mathrm{polylog} (1/\epsilon)$. This yields improved runtimes for learning omnipredictors for the class of all convex, Lipschitz loss functions under weak learnability assumptions about the class $\mathcal C$. We also give efficient omnipredictors when the loss families have low-degree polynomial approximations, or arise from generalized linear models (GLMs). This translation from sufficient statistics to faster omnipredictors is made possible by lifting the technique of loss outcome indistinguishability introduced by [GKH+23] for Boolean labels to the regression setting.

We present a new perspective on loss minimization and the recent notion of Omniprediction through the lens of Outcome Indistingusihability. For a collection of losses and hypothesis class, omniprediction requires that a predictor provide a loss-minimization guarantee simultaneously for every loss in the collection compared to the best (loss-specific) hypothesis in the class. We present a generic template to learn predictors satisfying a guarantee we call Loss Outcome Indistinguishability. For a set of statistical tests--based on a collection of losses and hypothesis class--a predictor is Loss OI if it is indistinguishable (according to the tests) from Nature's true probabilities over outcomes. By design, Loss OI implies omniprediction in a direct and intuitive manner.

We present a new perspective on loss minimization and the recent notion of Omniprediction through the lens of Outcome Indistingusihability. For a collection of losses and hypothesis class, omniprediction requires that a predictor provide a loss-minimization guarantee simultaneously for every loss in the collection compared to the best (loss-specific) hypothesis in the class. We present a generic template to learn predictors satisfying a guarantee we call Loss Outcome Indistinguishability. For a set of statistical tests--based on a collection of losses and hypothesis class--a predictor is Loss OI if it is indistinguishable (according to the tests) from Nature's true probabilities over outcomes. By design, Loss OI implies omniprediction in a direct and intuitive manner. We simplify Loss OI further, decomposing it into a calibration condition plus multiaccuracy for a class of functions derived from the loss and hypothesis classes. By careful analysis of this class, we give efficient constructions of omnipredictors for interesting classes of loss functions, including non-convex losses. This decomposition highlights the utility of a new multi-group fairness notion that we call calibrated multiaccuracy, which lies in between multiaccuracy and multicalibration. We show that calibrated multiaccuracy implies Loss OI for the important set of convex losses arising from Generalized Linear Models, without requiring full multicalibration. For such losses, we show an equivalence between our computational notion of Loss OI and a geometric notion of indistinguishability, formulated as Pythagorean theorems in the associated Bregman divergence. We give an efficient algorithm for calibrated multiaccuracy with computational complexity comparable to that of multiaccuracy. In all, calibrated multiaccuracy offers an interesting tradeoff point between efficiency and generality in the omniprediction landscape.

Machine learning predictors are successfully deployed in applications ranging from disease diagnosis, to predicting credit scores, to image recognition. Even when the overall accuracy is high, the predictions often have systematic biases that harm specific subgroups, especially for subgroups that are minorities in the training data. We develop a rigorous framework of multiaccuracy auditing and post-processing to improve predictor accuracies across identifiable subgroups. Our algorithm, MultiaccuracyBoost, works in any setting where we have black-box access to a predictor and a relatively small set of labeled data for auditing. We prove guarantees on the convergence rate of the algorithm and show that it improves overall accuracy at each step. Importantly, if the initial model is accurate on an identifiable subgroup, then the post-processed model will be also. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach on diverse applications in image classification, finance, and population health. MultiaccuracyBoost can improve subpopulation accuracy (e.g. for `black women') even when the sensitive features (e.g. `race', `gender') are not known to the algorithm.