Multigroup Robustness

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.

Predict to Minimize Swap Regret for All Payoff-Bounded Tasks

A sequence of predictions is calibrated if and only if it induces no swap regret to all down-stream decision tasks. We study the Maximum Swap Regret (MSR) of predictions for binary events: the swap regret maximized over all downstream tasks with bounded payoffs. Previously, the best online prediction algorithm for minimizing MSR is obtained by minimizing the K1 calibration error, which upper bounds MSR up to a constant factor. However, recent work (Qiao and Valiant, 2021) gives an ${\Omega}(T^{0.528})$ lower bound for the worst-case expected $K_1$ calibration error incurred by any randomized algorithm in T rounds, presenting a barrier to achieving better rates for MSR. Several relaxations of MSR have been considered to overcome this barrier, via external regret (Kleinberg et al., 2023) and regret bounds depending polynomially on the number of actions in downstream tasks (Noarov et al., 2023; Roth and Shi, 2024). We show that the barrier can be surpassed without any relaxations: we give an efficient randomized prediction algorithm that guarantees $O(\sqrt{T}logT)$ expected MSR. We also discuss the economic utility of calibration by viewing MSR as a decision-theoretic calibration error metric and study its relationship to existing metrics.

Testing Calibration in Subquadratic Time

In the recent literature on machine learning and decision making, calibration has emerged as a desirable and widely-studied statistical property of the outputs of binary prediction models. However, the algorithmic aspects of measuring model calibration have remained relatively less well-explored. Motivated by [BGHN23], which proposed a rigorous framework for measuring distances to calibration, we initiate the algorithmic study of calibration through the lens of property testing. We define the problem of calibration testing from samples where given $n$ draws from a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ on (predictions, binary outcomes), our goal is to distinguish between the case where $\mathcal{D}$ is perfectly calibrated, and the case where $\mathcal{D}$ is $\varepsilon$-far from calibration. We design an algorithm based on approximate linear programming, which solves calibration testing information-theoretically optimally (up to constant factors) in time $O(n^{1.5} \log(n))$. This improves upon state-of-the-art black-box linear program solvers requiring $\Omega(n^\omega)$ time, where $\omega > 2$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication. We also develop algorithms for tolerant variants of our testing problem, and give sample complexity lower bounds for alternative calibration distances to the one considered in this work. Finally, we present preliminary experiments showing that the testing problem we define faithfully captures standard notions of calibration, and that our algorithms scale to accommodate moderate sample sizes.

On Computationally Efficient Multi-Class Calibration

Consider a multi-class labelling problem, where the labels can take values in $[k]$, and a predictor predicts a distribution over the labels. In this work, we study the following foundational question: Are there notions of multi-class calibration that give strong guarantees of meaningful predictions and can be achieved in time and sample complexities polynomial in $k$? Prior notions of calibration exhibit a tradeoff between computational efficiency and expressivity: they either suffer from having sample complexity exponential in $k$, or needing to solve computationally intractable problems, or give rather weak guarantees. Our main contribution is a notion of calibration that achieves all these desiderata: we formulate a robust notion of projected smooth calibration for multi-class predictions, and give new recalibration algorithms for efficiently calibrating predictors under this definition with complexity polynomial in $k$. Projected smooth calibration gives strong guarantees for all downstream decision makers who want to use the predictor for binary classification problems of the form: does the label belong to a subset $T \subseteq [k]$: e.g. is this an image of an animal? It ensures that the probabilities predicted by summing the probabilities assigned to labels in $T$ are close to some perfectly calibrated binary predictor for that task. We also show that natural strengthenings of our definition are computationally hard to achieve: they run into information theoretic barriers or computational intractability. Underlying both our upper and lower bounds is a tight connection that we prove between multi-class calibration and the well-studied problem of agnostic learning in the (standard) binary prediction setting.

Simple, Scalable and Effective Clustering via One-Dimensional Projections

Clustering is a fundamental problem in unsupervised machine learning with many applications in data analysis. Popular clustering algorithms such as Lloyd's algorithm and $k$-means++ can take $\Omega(ndk)$ time when clustering $n$ points in a $d$-dimensional space (represented by an $n\times d$ matrix $X$) into $k$ clusters. In applications with moderate to large $k$, the multiplicative $k$ factor can become very expensive. We introduce a simple randomized clustering algorithm that provably runs in expected time $O(\mathrm{nnz}(X) + n\log n)$ for arbitrary $k$. Here $\mathrm{nnz}(X)$ is the total number of non-zero entries in the input dataset $X$, which is upper bounded by $nd$ and can be significantly smaller for sparse datasets. We prove that our algorithm achieves approximation ratio $\smash{\widetilde{O}(k^4)}$ on any input dataset for the $k$-means objective. We also believe that our theoretical analysis is of independent interest, as we show that the approximation ratio of a $k$-means algorithm is approximately preserved under a class of projections and that $k$-means++ seeding can be implemented in expected $O(n \log n)$ time in one dimension. Finally, we show experimentally that our clustering algorithm gives a new tradeoff between running time and cluster quality compared to previous state-of-the-art methods for these tasks.

When Does Optimizing a Proper Loss Yield Calibration?

Optimizing proper loss functions is popularly believed to yield predictors with good calibration properties; the intuition being that for such losses, the global optimum is to predict the ground-truth probabilities, which is indeed calibrated. However, typical machine learning models are trained to approximately minimize loss over restricted families of predictors, that are unlikely to contain the ground truth. Under what circumstances does optimizing proper loss over a restricted family yield calibrated models? What precise calibration guarantees does it give? In this work, we provide a rigorous answer to these questions. We replace the global optimality with a local optimality condition stipulating that the (proper) loss of the predictor cannot be reduced much by post-processing its predictions with a certain family of Lipschitz functions. We show that any predictor with this local optimality satisfies smooth calibration as defined in Kakade-Foster (2008), B{\l}asiok et al. (2023). Local optimality is plausibly satisfied by well-trained DNNs, which suggests an explanation for why they are calibrated from proper loss minimization alone. Finally, we show that the connection between local optimality and calibration error goes both ways: nearly calibrated predictors are also nearly locally optimal.

Loss minimization yields multicalibration for large neural networks

Multicalibration is a notion of fairness that aims to provide accurate predictions across a large set of groups. Multicalibration is known to be a different goal than loss minimization, even for simple predictors such as linear functions. In this note, we show that for (almost all) large neural network sizes, optimally minimizing squared error leads to multicalibration. Our results are about representational aspects of neural networks, and not about algorithmic or sample complexity considerations. Previous such results were known only for predictors that were nearly Bayes-optimal and were therefore representation independent. We emphasize that our results do not apply to specific algorithms for optimizing neural networks, such as SGD, and they should not be interpreted as "fairness comes for free from optimizing neural networks".

Generative Models of Huge Objects

This work initiates the systematic study of explicit distributions that are indistinguishable from a single exponential-size combinatorial object. In this we extend the work of Goldreich, Goldwasser and Nussboim (SICOMP 2010) that focused on the implementation of huge objects that are indistinguishable from the uniform distribution, satisfying some global properties (which they coined truthfulness). Indistinguishability from a single object is motivated by the study of generative models in learning theory and regularity lemmas in graph theory. Problems that are well understood in the setting of pseudorandomness present significant challenges and at times are impossible when considering generative models of huge objects. We demonstrate the versatility of this study by providing a learning algorithm for huge indistinguishable objects in several natural settings including: dense functions and graphs with a truthfulness requirement on the number of ones in the function or edges in the graphs, and a version of the weak regularity lemma for sparse graphs that satisfy some global properties. These and other results generalize basic pseudorandom objects as well as notions introduced in algorithmic fairness. The results rely on notions and techniques from a variety of areas including learning theory, complexity theory, cryptography, and game theory.

A Unifying Theory of Distance from Calibration

We study the fundamental question of how to define and measure the distance from calibration for probabilistic predictors. While the notion of perfect calibration is well-understood, there is no consensus on how to quantify the distance from perfect calibration. Numerous calibration measures have been proposed in the literature, but it is unclear how they compare to each other, and many popular measures such as Expected Calibration Error (ECE) fail to satisfy basic properties like continuity. We present a rigorous framework for analyzing calibration measures, inspired by the literature on property testing. We propose a ground-truth notion of distance from calibration: the $\ell_1$ distance to the nearest perfectly calibrated predictor. We define a consistent calibration measure as one that is a polynomial factor approximation to the this distance. Applying our framework, we identify three calibration measures that are consistent and can be estimated efficiently: smooth calibration, interval calibration, and Laplace kernel calibration. The former two give quadratic approximations to the ground truth distance, which we show is information-theoretically optimal. Our work thus establishes fundamental lower and upper bounds on measuring distance to calibration, and also provides theoretical justification for preferring certain metrics (like Laplace kernel calibration) in practice.

Comparative Learning: A Sample Complexity Theory for Two Hypothesis Classes

In many learning theory problems, a central role is played by a hypothesis class: we might assume that the data is labeled according to a hypothesis in the class (usually referred to as the realizable setting), or we might evaluate the learned model by comparing it with the best hypothesis in the class (the agnostic setting). Taking a step beyond these classic setups that involve only a single hypothesis class, we introduce comparative learning as a combination of the realizable and agnostic settings in PAC learning: given two binary hypothesis classes $S$ and $B$, we assume that the data is labeled according to a hypothesis in the source class $S$ and require the learned model to achieve an accuracy comparable to the best hypothesis in the benchmark class $B$. Even when both $S$ and $B$ have infinite VC dimensions, comparative learning can still have a small sample complexity. We show that the sample complexity of comparative learning is characterized by the mutual VC dimension $\mathsf{VC}(S,B)$ which we define to be the maximum size of a subset shattered by both $S$ and $B$. We also show a similar result in the online setting, where we give a regret characterization in terms of the mutual Littlestone dimension $\mathsf{Ldim}(S,B)$. These results also hold for partial hypotheses. We additionally show that the insights necessary to characterize the sample complexity of comparative learning can be applied to characterize the sample complexity of realizable multiaccuracy and multicalibration using the mutual fat-shattering dimension, an analogue of the mutual VC dimension for real-valued hypotheses. This not only solves an open problem proposed by Hu, Peale, Reingold (2022), but also leads to independently interesting results extending classic ones about regression, boosting, and covering number to our two-hypothesis-class setting.