Quantifying Knowledge Distillation Using Partial Information Decomposition

Knowledge distillation provides an effective method for deploying complex machine learning models in resource-constrained environments. It typically involves training a smaller student model to emulate either the probabilistic outputs or the internal feature representations of a larger teacher model. By doing so, the student model often achieves substantially better performance on a downstream task compared to when it is trained independently. Nevertheless, the teacher's internal representations can also encode noise or additional information that may not be relevant to the downstream task. This observation motivates our primary question: What are the information-theoretic limits of knowledge transfer? To this end, we leverage a body of work in information theory called Partial Information Decomposition (PID) to quantify the distillable and distilled knowledge of a teacher's representation corresponding to a given student and a downstream task. Moreover, we demonstrate that this metric can be practically used in distillation to address challenges caused by the complexity gap between the teacher and the student representations.

Private Counterfactual Retrieval

Transparency and explainability are two extremely important aspects to be considered when employing black-box machine learning models in high-stake applications. Providing counterfactual explanations is one way of catering this requirement. However, this also poses a threat to the privacy of both the institution that is providing the explanation as well as the user who is requesting it. In this work, we propose multiple schemes inspired by private information retrieval (PIR) techniques which ensure the \emph{user's privacy} when retrieving counterfactual explanations. We present a scheme which retrieves the \emph{exact} nearest neighbor counterfactual explanation from a database of accepted points while achieving perfect (information-theoretic) privacy for the user. While the scheme achieves perfect privacy for the user, some leakage on the database is inevitable which we quantify using a mutual information based metric. Furthermore, we propose strategies to reduce this leakage to achieve an advanced degree of database privacy. We extend these schemes to incorporate user's preference on transforming their attributes, so that a more actionable explanation can be received. Since our schemes rely on finite field arithmetic, we empirically validate our schemes on real datasets to understand the trade-off between the accuracy and the finite field sizes.

Quantifying Prediction Consistency Under Model Multiplicity in Tabular LLMs

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on limited tabular data for classification tasks can lead to \textit{fine-tuning multiplicity}, where equally well-performing models make conflicting predictions on the same inputs due to variations in the training process (i.e., seed, random weight initialization, retraining on additional or deleted samples). This raises critical concerns about the robustness and reliability of Tabular LLMs, particularly when deployed for high-stakes decision-making, such as finance, hiring, education, healthcare, etc. This work formalizes the challenge of fine-tuning multiplicity in Tabular LLMs and proposes a novel metric to quantify the robustness of individual predictions without expensive model retraining. Our metric quantifies a prediction's stability by analyzing (sampling) the model's local behavior around the input in the embedding space. Interestingly, we show that sampling in the local neighborhood can be leveraged to provide probabilistic robustness guarantees against a broad class of fine-tuned models. By leveraging Bernstein's Inequality, we show that predictions with sufficiently high robustness (as defined by our measure) will remain consistent with high probability. We also provide empirical evaluation on real-world datasets to support our theoretical results. Our work highlights the importance of addressing fine-tuning instabilities to enable trustworthy deployment of LLMs in high-stakes and safety-critical applications.

Quantifying Spuriousness of Biased Datasets Using Partial Information Decomposition

Spurious patterns refer to a mathematical association between two or more variables in a dataset that are not causally related. However, this notion of spuriousness, which is usually introduced due to sampling biases in the dataset, has classically lacked a formal definition. To address this gap, this work presents the first information-theoretic formalization of spuriousness in a dataset (given a split of spurious and core features) using a mathematical framework called Partial Information Decomposition (PID). Specifically, we disentangle the joint information content that the spurious and core features share about another target variable (e.g., the prediction label) into distinct components, namely unique, redundant, and synergistic information. We propose the use of unique information, with roots in Blackwell Sufficiency, as a novel metric to formally quantify dataset spuriousness and derive its desirable properties. We empirically demonstrate how higher unique information in the spurious features in a dataset could lead a model into choosing the spurious features over the core features for inference, often having low worst-group-accuracy. We also propose a novel autoencoder-based estimator for computing unique information that is able to handle high-dimensional image data. Finally, we also show how this unique information in the spurious feature is reduced across several dataset-based spurious-pattern-mitigation techniques such as data reweighting and varying levels of background mixing, demonstrating a novel tradeoff between unique information (spuriousness) and worst-group-accuracy.

A Unified View of Group Fairness Tradeoffs Using Partial Information Decomposition

This paper introduces a novel information-theoretic perspective on the relationship between prominent group fairness notions in machine learning, namely statistical parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity. It is well known that simultaneous satisfiability of these three fairness notions is usually impossible, motivating practitioners to resort to approximate fairness solutions rather than stringent satisfiability of these definitions. However, a comprehensive analysis of their interrelations, particularly when they are not exactly satisfied, remains largely unexplored. Our main contribution lies in elucidating an exact relationship between these three measures of (un)fairness by leveraging a body of work in information theory called partial information decomposition (PID). In this work, we leverage PID to identify the granular regions where these three measures of (un)fairness overlap and where they disagree with each other leading to potential tradeoffs. We also include numerical simulations to complement our results.

Model Reconstruction Using Counterfactual Explanations: Mitigating the Decision Boundary Shift

Counterfactual explanations find ways of achieving a favorable model outcome with minimum input perturbation. However, counterfactual explanations can also be exploited to steal the model by strategically training a surrogate model to give similar predictions as the original (target) model. In this work, we investigate model extraction by specifically leveraging the fact that the counterfactual explanations also lie quite close to the decision boundary. We propose a novel strategy for model extraction that we call Counterfactual Clamping Attack (CCA) which trains a surrogate model using a unique loss function that treats counterfactuals differently than ordinary instances. Our approach also alleviates the related problem of decision boundary shift that arises in existing model extraction attacks which treat counterfactuals as ordinary instances. We also derive novel mathematical relationships between the error in model approximation and the number of queries using polytope theory. Experimental results demonstrate that our strategy provides improved fidelity between the target and surrogate model predictions on several real world datasets.

REFRESH: Responsible and Efficient Feature Reselection Guided by SHAP Values

Feature selection is a crucial step in building machine learning models. This process is often achieved with accuracy as an objective, and can be cumbersome and computationally expensive for large-scale datasets. Several additional model performance characteristics such as fairness and robustness are of importance for model development. As regulations are driving the need for more trustworthy models, deployed models need to be corrected for model characteristics associated with responsible artificial intelligence. When feature selection is done with respect to one model performance characteristic (eg. accuracy), feature selection with secondary model performance characteristics (eg. fairness and robustness) as objectives would require going through the computationally expensive selection process from scratch. In this paper, we introduce the problem of feature \emph{reselection}, so that features can be selected with respect to secondary model performance characteristics efficiently even after a feature selection process has been done with respect to a primary objective. To address this problem, we propose REFRESH, a method to reselect features so that additional constraints that are desirable towards model performance can be achieved without having to train several new models. REFRESH's underlying algorithm is a novel technique using SHAP values and correlation analysis that can approximate for the predictions of a model without having to train these models. Empirical evaluations on three datasets, including a large-scale loan defaulting dataset show that REFRESH can help find alternate models with better model characteristics efficiently. We also discuss the need for reselection and REFRESH based on regulation desiderata.

Demystifying Local and Global Fairness Trade-offs in Federated Learning Using Partial Information Decomposition

In this paper, we present an information-theoretic perspective to group fairness trade-offs in federated learning (FL) with respect to sensitive attributes, such as gender, race, etc. Existing works mostly focus on either \emph{global fairness} (overall disparity of the model across all clients) or \emph{local fairness} (disparity of the model at each individual client), without always considering their trade-offs. There is a lack of understanding of the interplay between global and local fairness in FL, and if and when one implies the other. To address this gap, we leverage a body of work in information theory called partial information decomposition (PID) which first identifies three sources of unfairness in FL, namely, \emph{Unique Disparity}, \emph{Redundant Disparity}, and \emph{Masked Disparity}. Using canonical examples, we demonstrate how these three disparities contribute to global and local fairness. This decomposition helps us derive fundamental limits and trade-offs between global or local fairness, particularly under data heterogeneity, as well as, derive conditions under which one implies the other. We also present experimental results on benchmark datasets to support our theoretical findings. This work offers a more nuanced understanding of the sources of disparity in FL that can inform the use of local disparity mitigation techniques, and their convergence and effectiveness when deployed in practice.

Robust Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks With Probabilistic Guarantees

There is an emerging interest in generating robust counterfactual explanations that would remain valid if the model is updated or changed even slightly. Towards finding robust counterfactuals, existing literature often assumes that the original model $m$ and the new model $M$ are bounded in the parameter space, i.e., $\|\text{Params}(M){-}\text{Params}(m)\|{<}\Delta$. However, models can often change significantly in the parameter space with little to no change in their predictions or accuracy on the given dataset. In this work, we introduce a mathematical abstraction termed \emph{naturally-occurring} model change, which allows for arbitrary changes in the parameter space such that the change in predictions on points that lie on the data manifold is limited. Next, we propose a measure -- that we call \emph{Stability} -- to quantify the robustness of counterfactuals to potential model changes for differentiable models, e.g., neural networks. Our main contribution is to show that counterfactuals with sufficiently high value of \emph{Stability} as defined by our measure will remain valid after potential ``naturally-occurring'' model changes with high probability (leveraging concentration bounds for Lipschitz function of independent Gaussians). Since our quantification depends on the local Lipschitz constant around a data point which is not always available, we also examine practical relaxations of our proposed measure and demonstrate experimentally how they can be incorporated to find robust counterfactuals for neural networks that are close, realistic, and remain valid after potential model changes.

Hyper-parameter Tuning for Fair Classification without Sensitive Attribute Access

Fair machine learning methods seek to train models that balance model performance across demographic subgroups defined over sensitive attributes like race and gender. Although sensitive attributes are typically assumed to be known during training, they may not be available in practice due to privacy and other logistical concerns. Recent work has sought to train fair models without sensitive attributes on training data. However, these methods need extensive hyper-parameter tuning to achieve good results, and hence assume that sensitive attributes are known on validation data. However, this assumption too might not be practical. Here, we propose Antigone, a framework to train fair classifiers without access to sensitive attributes on either training or validation data. Instead, we generate pseudo sensitive attributes on the validation data by training a biased classifier and using the classifier's incorrectly (correctly) labeled examples as proxies for minority (majority) groups. Since fairness metrics like demographic parity, equal opportunity and subgroup accuracy can be estimated to within a proportionality constant even with noisy sensitive attribute information, we show theoretically and empirically that these proxy labels can be used to maximize fairness under average accuracy constraints. Key to our results is a principled approach to select the hyper-parameters of the biased classifier in a completely unsupervised fashion (meaning without access to ground truth sensitive attributes) that minimizes the gap between fairness estimated using noisy versus ground-truth sensitive labels.