Score Design for Multi-Criteria Incentivization

We present a framework for designing scores to summarize performance metrics. Our design has two multi-criteria objectives: (1) improving on scores should improve all performance metrics, and (2) achieving pareto-optimal scores should achieve pareto-optimal metrics. We formulate our design to minimize the dimensionality of scores while satisfying the objectives. We give algorithms to design scores, which are provably minimal under mild assumptions on the structure of performance metrics. This framework draws motivation from real-world practices in hospital rating systems, where misaligned scores and performance metrics lead to unintended consequences.

Distribution Learnability and Robustness

We examine the relationship between learnability and robust (or agnostic) learnability for the problem of distribution learning. We show that, contrary to other learning settings (e.g., PAC learning of function classes), realizable learnability of a class of probability distributions does not imply its agnostic learnability. We go on to examine what type of data corruption can disrupt the learnability of a distribution class and what is such learnability robust against. We show that realizable learnability of a class of distributions implies its robust learnability with respect to only additive corruption, but not against subtractive corruption. We also explore related implications in the context of compression schemes and differentially private learnability.

On the Computability of Robust PAC Learning

We initiate the study of computability requirements for adversarially robust learning. Adversarially robust PAC-type learnability is by now an established field of research. However, the effects of computability requirements in PAC-type frameworks are only just starting to emerge. We introduce the problem of robust computable PAC (robust CPAC) learning and provide some simple sufficient conditions for this. We then show that learnability in this setup is not implied by the combination of its components: classes that are both CPAC and robustly PAC learnable are not necessarily robustly CPAC learnable. Furthermore, we show that the novel framework exhibits some surprising effects: for robust CPAC learnability it is not required that the robust loss is computably evaluable! Towards understanding characterizing properties, we introduce a novel dimension, the computable robust shattering dimension. We prove that its finiteness is necessary, but not sufficient for robust CPAC learnability. This might yield novel insights for the corresponding phenomenon in the context of robust PAC learnability, where insufficiency of the robust shattering dimension for learnability has been conjectured, but so far a resolution has remained elusive.

Impossibility of Characterizing Distribution Learning -- a simple solution to a long-standing problem

We consider the long-standing question of finding a parameter of a class of probability distributions that characterizes its PAC learnability. We provide a rather surprising answer - no such parameter exists. Our techniques allow us to show similar results for several general notions of characterizing learnability and for several learning tasks. We show that there is no notion of dimension that characterizes the sample complexity of learning distribution classes. We then consider the weaker requirement of only characterizing learnability (rather than the quantitative sample complexity function). We propose some natural requirements for such a characterization and go on to show that there exists no characterization of learnability that satisfies these requirements for classes of distributions. Furthermore, we show that our results hold for various other learning problems. In particular, we show that there is no notion of dimension characterizing (or characterization of learnability) for any of the tasks: classification learning for distribution classes, learning of binary classifications w.r.t. a restricted set of marginal distributions, and learnability of classes of real-valued functions with continuous losses.

Learning Losses for Strategic Classification

Strategic classification, i.e. classification under possible strategic manipulations of features, has received a lot of attention from both the machine learning and the game theory community. Most works focus on analysing properties of the optimal decision rule under such manipulations. In our work we take a learning theoretic perspective, focusing on the sample complexity needed to learn a good decision rule which is robust to strategic manipulation. We perform this analysis by introducing a novel loss function, the \emph{strategic manipulation loss}, which takes into account both the accuracy of the final decision rule and its vulnerability to manipulation. We analyse the sample complexity for a known graph of possible manipulations in terms of the complexity of the function class and the manipulation graph. Additionally, we initialize the study of learning under unknown manipulation capabilities of the involved agents. Using techniques from transfer learning theory, we define a similarity measure for manipulation graphs and show that learning outcomes are robust with respect to small changes in the manipulation graph. Lastly, we analyse the (sample complexity of) learning of the manipulation capability of agents with respect to this similarity measure, providing novel guarantees for strategic classification with respect to an unknown manipulation graph.

Impossibility results for fair representations

With the growing awareness to fairness in machine learning and the realization of the central role that data representation has in data processing tasks, there is an obvious interest in notions of fair data representations. The goal of such representations is that a model trained on data under the representation (e.g., a classifier) will be guaranteed to respect some fairness constraints. Such representations are useful when they can be fixed for training models on various different tasks and also when they serve as data filtering between the raw data (known to the representation designer) and potentially malicious agents that use the data under the representation to learn predictive models and make decisions. A long list of recent research papers strive to provide tools for achieving these goals. However, we prove that this is basically a futile effort. Roughly stated, we prove that no representation can guarantee the fairness of classifiers for different tasks trained using it; even the basic goal of achieving label-independent Demographic Parity fairness fails once the marginal data distribution shifts. More refined notions of fairness, like Odds Equality, cannot be guaranteed by a representation that does not take into account the task specific labeling rule with respect to which such fairness will be evaluated (even if the marginal data distribution is known a priory). Furthermore, except for trivial cases, no representation can guarantee Odds Equality fairness for any two different tasks, while allowing accurate label predictions for both. While some of our conclusions are intuitive, we formulate (and prove) crisp statements of such impossibilities, often contrasting impressions conveyed by many recent works on fair representations.