Search

As statistical analyses become more central to science, industry and society, there is a growing need to ensure correctness of their results. Approximate correctness can be verified by replicating the entire analysis, but can we verify without replication? Building on a recent line of work, we study proof-systems that allow a probabilistic verifier to ascertain that the results of an analysis are approximately correct, while drawing fewer samples and using less computational resources than would be needed to replicate the analysis. We focus on distribution testing problems: verifying that an unknown distribution is close to having a claimed property. Our main contribution is a interactive protocol between a verifier and an untrusted prover, which can be used to verify any distribution property that can be decided in polynomial time given a full and explicit description of the distribution. If the distribution is at statistical distance $\varepsilon$ from having the property, then the verifier rejects with high probability. This soundness property holds against any polynomial-time strategy that a cheating prover might follow, assuming the existence of collision-resistant hash functions (a standard assumption in cryptography). For distributions over a domain of size $N$, the protocol consists of $4$ messages and the communication complexity and verifier runtime are roughly $\widetilde{O}\left(\sqrt{N} / \varepsilon^2 \right)$. The verifier's sample complexity is $\widetilde{O}\left(\sqrt{N} / \varepsilon^2 \right)$, and this is optimal up to $\polylog(N)$ factors (for any protocol, regardless of its communication complexity). Even for simple properties, approximately deciding whether an unknown distribution has the property can require quasi-linear sample complexity and running time. For any such property, our protocol provides a quadratic speedup over replicating the analysis.

This paper presents Wally, a private search system that supports efficient semantic and keyword search queries against large databases. When sufficiently many clients are making queries, Wally's performance is significantly better than previous systems. In previous private search systems, for each client query, the server must perform at least one expensive cryptographic operation per database entry. As a result, performance degraded proportionally with the number of entries in the database. In Wally, we get rid of this limitation. Specifically, for each query the server performs cryptographic operations only against a few database entries. We achieve these results by requiring each client to add a few fake queries and send each query via an anonymous network to the server at independently chosen random instants. Additionally, each client also uses somewhat homomorphic encryption (SHE) to hide whether a query is real or fake. Wally provides $(\epsilon, \delta)$-differential privacy guarantee, which is an accepted standard for strong privacy. The number of fake queries each client makes depends inversely on the number of clients making queries. Therefore, the fake queries' overhead vanishes as the number of clients increases, enabling scalability to millions of queries and large databases. Concretely, Wally can process eight million queries in just 117 mins. That is around four orders of magnitude less than the state of the art.

How can we trust the correctness of a learned model on a particular input of interest? Model accuracy is typically measured *on average* over a distribution of inputs, giving no guarantee for any fixed input. This paper proposes a theoretically-founded solution to this problem: to train *Self-Proving models* that prove the correctness of their output to a verification algorithm $V$ via an Interactive Proof. Self-Proving models satisfy that, with high probability over a random input, the model generates a correct output *and* successfully proves its correctness to $V\!$. The *soundness* property of $V$ guarantees that, for *every* input, no model can convince $V$ of the correctness of an incorrect output. Thus, a Self-Proving model proves correctness of most of its outputs, while *all* incorrect outputs (of any model) are detected by $V$. We devise a generic method for learning Self-Proving models, and we prove convergence bounds under certain assumptions. The theoretical framework and results are complemented by experiments on an arithmetic capability: computing the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. Our learning method is used to train a Self-Proving transformer that computes the GCD *and* proves the correctness of its answer.

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., Comment: In COLT 2024

Secure aggregation of high-dimensional vectors is a fundamental primitive in federated statistics and learning. A two-server system such as PRIO allows for scalable aggregation of secret-shared vectors. Adversarial clients might try to manipulate the aggregate, so it is important to ensure that each (secret-shared) contribution is well-formed. In this work, we focus on the important and well-studied goal of ensuring that each contribution vector has bounded Euclidean norm. Existing protocols for ensuring bounded-norm contributions either incur a large communication overhead, or only allow for approximate verification of the norm bound. We propose Private Inexpensive Norm Enforcement (PINE): a new protocol that allows exact norm verification with little communication overhead. For high-dimensional vectors, our approach has a communication overhead of a few percent, compared to the 16-32x overhead of previous approaches.

We revisit the problem of designing scalable protocols for private statistics and private federated learning when each device holds its private data. Locally differentially private algorithms require little trust but are (provably) limited in their utility. Centrally differentially private algorithms can allow significantly better utility but require a trusted curator. This gap has led to significant interest in the design and implementation of simple cryptographic primitives, that can allow central-like utility guarantees without having to trust a central server. Our first contribution is to propose a new primitive that allows for efficient implementation of several commonly used algorithms, and allows for privacy accounting that is close to that in the central setting without requiring the strong trust assumptions it entails. {\em Shuffling} and {\em aggregation} primitives that have been proposed in earlier works enable this for some algorithms, but have significant limitations as primitives. We propose a {\em Samplable Anonymous Aggregation} primitive, which computes an aggregate over a random subset of the inputs and show that it leads to better privacy-utility trade-offs for various fundamental tasks. Secondly, we propose a system architecture that implements this primitive and perform a security analysis of the proposed system. Our design combines additive secret-sharing with anonymization and authentication infrastructures., Comment: 34 pages

ML-based predictions are used to inform consequential decisions about individuals. How should we use predictions (e.g., risk of heart attack) to inform downstream binary classification decisions (e.g., undergoing a medical procedure)? When the risk estimates are perfectly calibrated, the answer is well understood: a classification problem's cost structure induces an optimal treatment threshold $j^{\star}$. In practice, however, some amount of miscalibration is unavoidable, raising a fundamental question: how should one use potentially miscalibrated predictions to inform binary decisions? We formalize a natural (distribution-free) solution concept: given anticipated miscalibration of $\alpha$, we propose using the threshold $j$ that minimizes the worst-case regret over all $\alpha$-miscalibrated predictors, where the regret is the difference in clinical utility between using the threshold in question and using the optimal threshold in hindsight. We provide closed form expressions for $j$ when miscalibration is measured using both expected and maximum calibration error, which reveal that it indeed differs from $j^{\star}$ (the optimal threshold under perfect calibration). We validate our theoretical findings on real data, demonstrating that there are natural cases in which making decisions using $j$ improves the clinical utility.

There are growing concerns that algorithms, which increasingly make or influence important decisions pertaining to individuals, might produce outcomes that discriminate against protected groups. We study such fairness concerns in the context of a two-sided market, where there are two sets of agents, and each agent has preferences over the other set. The goal is producing a matching between the sets. This setting has been the focus of a rich body of work. The seminal work of Gale and Shapley formulated a stability desideratum, and showed that a stable matching always exists and can be found efficiently. We study this question through the lens of metric-based fairness notions (Dwork et al., Kim et al.). We formulate appropriate definitions of fairness and stability in the presence of a similarity metric, and ask: does a fair and stable matching always exist? Can such a matching be found in polynomial time? Our contributions are as follows: (1) Composition failures for classical algorithms: We show that composing the Gale-Shapley algorithm with fair hospital preferences can produce blatantly unfair outcomes. (2) New algorithms for finding fair and stable matchings: Our main technical contributions are efficient new algorithms for finding fair and stable matchings when: (i) the hospitals' preferences are fair, and (ii) the fairness metric satisfies a strong "proto-metric" condition: the distance between every two doctors is either zero or one. In particular, these algorithms also show that, in this setting, fairness and stability are compatible. (3) Barriers for finding fair and stable matchings in the general case: We show that if the hospital preferences can be unfair, or if the metric fails to satisfy the proto-metric condition, then no algorithm in a natural class can find a fair and stable matching. The natural class includes the classical Gale-Shapley algorithms and our new algorithms.

In many machine learning settings there is an inherent tension between fairness and accuracy desiderata. How should one proceed in light of such trade-offs? In this work we introduce and study $\gamma$-disqualification, a new framework for reasoning about fairness-accuracy tradeoffs w.r.t a benchmark class $H$ in the context of supervised learning. Our requirement stipulates that a classifier should be disqualified if it is possible to improve its fairness by switching to another classifier from $H$ without paying "too much" in accuracy. The notion of "too much" is quantified via a parameter $\gamma$ that serves as a vehicle for specifying acceptable tradeoffs between accuracy and fairness, in a way that is independent from the specific metrics used to quantify fairness and accuracy in a given task. Towards this objective, we establish principled translations between units of accuracy and units of (un)fairness for different accuracy measures. We show $\gamma$-disqualification can be used to easily compare different learning strategies in terms of how they trade-off fairness and accuracy, and we give an efficient reduction from the problem of finding the optimal classifier that satisfies our requirement to the problem of approximating the Pareto frontier of $H$.

An agnostic PAC learning algorithm finds a predictor that is competitive with the best predictor in a benchmark hypothesis class, where competitiveness is measured with respect to a given loss function. However, its predictions might be quite sub-optimal for structured subgroups of individuals, such as protected demographic groups. Motivated by such fairness concerns, we study "multi-group agnostic PAC learnability": fixing a measure of loss, a benchmark class $\H$ and a (potentially) rich collection of subgroups $\G$, the objective is to learn a single predictor such that the loss experienced by every group $g \in \G$ is not much larger than the best possible loss for this group within $\H$. Under natural conditions, we provide a characterization of the loss functions for which such a predictor is guaranteed to exist. For any such loss function we construct a learning algorithm whose sample complexity is logarithmic in the size of the collection $\G$. Our results unify and extend previous positive and negative results from the multi-group fairness literature, which applied for specific loss functions., Comment: To appear in ICML 2021

Prediction algorithms assign numbers to individuals that are popularly understood as individual "probabilities" -- what is the probability of 5-year survival after cancer diagnosis? -- and which increasingly form the basis for life-altering decisions. Drawing on an understanding of computational indistinguishability developed in complexity theory and cryptography, we introduce Outcome Indistinguishability. Predictors that are Outcome Indistinguishable yield a generative model for outcomes that cannot be efficiently refuted on the basis of the real-life observations produced by Nature. We investigate a hierarchy of Outcome Indistinguishability definitions, whose stringency increases with the degree to which distinguishers may access the predictor in question. Our findings reveal that Outcome Indistinguishability behaves qualitatively differently than previously studied notions of indistinguishability. First, we provide constructions at all levels of the hierarchy. Then, leveraging recently-developed machinery for proving average-case fine-grained hardness, we obtain lower bounds on the complexity of the more stringent forms of Outcome Indistinguishability. This hardness result provides the first scientific grounds for the political argument that, when inspecting algorithmic risk prediction instruments, auditors should be granted oracle access to the algorithm, not simply historical predictions.

It is well understood that classification algorithms, for example, for deciding on loan applications, cannot be evaluated for fairness without taking context into account. We examine what can be learned from a fairness oracle equipped with an underlying understanding of ``true'' fairness. The oracle takes as input a (context, classifier) pair satisfying an arbitrary fairness definition, and accepts or rejects the pair according to whether the classifier satisfies the underlying fairness truth. Our principal conceptual result is an extraction procedure that learns the underlying truth; moreover, the procedure can learn an approximation to this truth given access to a weak form of the oracle. Since every ``truly fair'' classifier induces a coarse metric, in which those receiving the same decision are at distance zero from one another and those receiving different decisions are at distance one, this extraction process provides the basis for ensuring a rough form of metric fairness, also known as individual fairness. Our principal technical result is a higher fidelity extractor under a mild technical constraint on the weak oracle's conception of fairness. Our framework permits the scenario in which many classifiers, with differing outcomes, may all be considered fair. Our results have implications for interpretablity -- a highly desired but poorly defined property of classification systems that endeavors to permit a human arbiter to reject classifiers deemed to be ``unfair'' or illegitimately derived., Comment: 17 pages, 1 figure

In differential privacy (DP), we want to query a database about n users, in a way that "leaks at most eps about any individual user," even conditioned on any outcome of the query. Meanwhile, in gentle measurement, we want to measure n quantum states, in a way that "damages the states by at most alpha," even conditioned on any outcome of the measurement. In both cases, we can achieve the goal by techniques like deliberately adding noise to the outcome before returning it. This paper proves a new and general connection between the two subjects. Specifically, we show that on products of n quantum states, any measurement that is alpha-gentle for small alpha is also O(alpha)-DP, and any product measurement that is eps-DP is also O(eps*sqrt(n))-gentle. Illustrating the power of this connection, we apply it to the recently studied problem of shadow tomography. Given an unknown d-dimensional quantum state rho, as well as known two-outcome measurements E_1,...,E_m, shadow tomography asks us to estimate Pr[E_i accepts rho], for every i in [m], by measuring few copies of rho. Using our connection theorem, together with a quantum analog of the so-called private multiplicative weights algorithm of Hardt and Rothblum, we give a protocol to solve this problem using O((log m)^2 (log d)^2) copies of rho, compared to Aaronson's previous bound of ~O((log m)^4 (log d)). Our protocol has the advantages of being online (that is, the E_i's are processed one at a time), gentle, and conceptually simple. Other applications of our connection include new lower bounds for shadow tomography from lower bounds on DP, and a result on the safe use of estimation algorithms as subroutines inside larger quantum algorithms., Comment: 85 pages, to appear in Proceedings of ACM STOC'2019

We study notions of fairness in decision-making systems when individuals have diverse preferences over the possible outcomes of the decisions. Our starting point is the seminal work of Dwork et al. which introduced a notion of individual fairness (IF): given a task-specific similarity metric, every pair of individuals who are similarly qualified according to the metric should receive similar outcomes. We show that when individuals have diverse preferences over outcomes, requiring IF may unintentionally lead to less-preferred outcomes for the very individuals that IF aims to protect. A natural alternative to IF is the classic notion of fair division, envy-freeness (EF): no individual should prefer another individual's outcome over their own. Although EF allows for solutions where all individuals receive a highly-preferred outcome, EF may also be overly-restrictive. For instance, if many individuals agree on the best outcome, then if any individual receives this outcome, they all must receive it, regardless of each individual's underlying qualifications for the outcome. We introduce and study a new notion of preference-informed individual fairness (PIIF) that is a relaxation of both individual fairness and envy-freeness. At a high-level, PIIF requires that outcomes satisfy IF-style constraints, but allows for deviations provided they are in line with individuals' preferences. We show that PIIF can permit outcomes that are more favorable to individuals than any IF solution, while providing considerably more flexibility to the decision-maker than EF. In addition, we show how to efficiently optimize any convex objective over the outcomes subject to PIIF for a rich class of individual preferences. Finally, we demonstrate the broad applicability of the PIIF framework by extending our definitions and algorithms to the multiple-task targeted advertising setting introduced by Dwork and Ilvento.

In this paper we study the fine-grained complexity of finding exact and approximate solutions to problems in P. Our main contribution is showing reductions from exact to approximate solution for a host of such problems. As one (notable) example, we show that the Closest-LCS-Pair problem (Given two sets of strings $A$ and $B$, compute exactly the maximum $\textsf{LCS}(a, b)$ with $(a, b) \in A \times B$) is equivalent to its approximation version (under near-linear time reductions, and with a constant approximation factor). More generally, we identify a class of problems, which we call BP-Pair-Class, comprising both exact and approximate solutions, and show that they are all equivalent under near-linear time reductions. Exploring this class and its properties, we also show: $\bullet$ Under the NC-SETH assumption (a significantly more relaxed assumption than SETH), solving any of the problems in this class requires essentially quadratic time. $\bullet$ Modest improvements on the running time of known algorithms (shaving log factors) would imply that NEXP is not in non-uniform $\textsf{NC}^1$. $\bullet$ Finally, we leverage our techniques to show new barriers for deterministic approximation algorithms for LCS. At the heart of these new results is a deep connection between interactive proof systems for bounded-space computations and the fine-grained complexity of exact and approximate solutions to problems in P. In particular, our results build on the proof techniques from the classical IP = PSPACE result., Comment: Fixed a mistake in Theorem 11.2 (we thank Ray Li for pointing it out to us); all main results are unaffected

We study the problem of fair classification within the versatile framework of Dwork et al. [ITCS '12], which assumes the existence of a metric that measures similarity between pairs of individuals. Unlike earlier work, we do not assume that the entire metric is known to the learning algorithm; instead, the learner can query this arbitrary metric a bounded number of times. We propose a new notion of fairness called metric multifairness and show how to achieve this notion in our setting. Metric multifairness is parameterized by a similarity metric $d$ on pairs of individuals to classify and a rich collection ${\cal C}$ of (possibly overlapping) "comparison sets" over pairs of individuals. At a high level, metric multifairness guarantees that similar subpopulations are treated similarly, as long as these subpopulations are identified within the class ${\cal C}$., Comment: Appears at NeurIPS 2018

The seminal work of Dwork {\em et al.} [ITCS 2012] introduced a metric-based notion of individual fairness. Given a task-specific similarity metric, their notion required that every pair of similar individuals should be treated similarly. In the context of machine learning, however, individual fairness does not generalize from a training set to the underlying population. We show that this can lead to computational intractability even for simple fair-learning tasks. With this motivation in mind, we introduce and study a relaxed notion of {\em approximate metric-fairness}: for a random pair of individuals sampled from the population, with all but a small probability of error, if they are similar then they should be treated similarly. We formalize the goal of achieving approximate metric-fairness simultaneously with best-possible accuracy as Probably Approximately Correct and Fair (PACF) Learning. We show that approximate metric-fairness {\em does} generalize, and leverage these generalization guarantees to construct polynomial-time PACF learning algorithms for the classes of linear and logistic predictors., Comment: Published in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2018

As algorithms increasingly inform and influence decisions made about individuals, it becomes increasingly important to address concerns that these algorithms might be discriminatory. The output of an algorithm can be discriminatory for many reasons, most notably: (1) the data used to train the algorithm might be biased (in various ways) to favor certain populations over others; (2) the analysis of this training data might inadvertently or maliciously introduce biases that are not borne out in the data. This work focuses on the latter concern. We develop and study multicalbration -- a new measure of algorithmic fairness that aims to mitigate concerns about discrimination that is introduced in the process of learning a predictor from data. Multicalibration guarantees accurate (calibrated) predictions for every subpopulation that can be identified within a specified class of computations. We think of the class as being quite rich; in particular, it can contain many overlapping subgroups of a protected group. We show that in many settings this strong notion of protection from discrimination is both attainable and aligned with the goal of obtaining accurate predictions. Along the way, we present new algorithms for learning a multicalibrated predictor, study the computational complexity of this task, and draw new connections to computational learning models such as agnostic learning.

We introduce Concentrated Differential Privacy, a relaxation of Differential Privacy enjoying better accuracy than both pure differential privacy and its popular "(epsilon,delta)" relaxation without compromising on cumulative privacy loss over multiple computations.

This work considers computationally efficient privacy-preserving data release. We study the task of analyzing a database containing sensitive information about individual participants. Given a set of statistical queries on the data, we want to release approximate answers to the queries while also guaranteeing differential privacy---protecting each participant's sensitive data. Our focus is on computationally efficient data release algorithms; we seek algorithms whose running time is polynomial, or at least sub-exponential, in the data dimensionality. Our primary contribution is a computationally efficient reduction from differentially private data release for a class of counting queries, to learning thresholded sums of predicates from a related class. We instantiate this general reduction with a variety of algorithms for learning thresholds. These instantiations yield several new results for differentially private data release. As two examples, taking {0,1}^d to be the data domain (of dimension d), we obtain differentially private algorithms for: (*) Releasing all k-way conjunctions. For any given k, the resulting data release algorithm has bounded error as long as the database is of size at least d^{O(\sqrt{k\log(k\log d)})}. The running time is polynomial in the database size. (*) Releasing a (1-\gamma)-fraction of all parity queries. For any \gamma \geq \poly(1/d), the algorithm has bounded error as long as the database is of size at least \poly(d). The running time is polynomial in the database size. Several other instantiations yield further results for privacy-preserving data release. Of the two results highlighted above, the first learning algorithm uses techniques for representing thresholded sums of predicates as low-degree polynomial threshold functions. The second learning algorithm is based on Jackson's Harmonic Sieve algorithm [Jackson 1997].