-
One for One, or All for All: Equilibria and Optimality of Collaboration in Federated Learning
Authors:
Avrim Blum,
Nika Haghtalab,
Richard Lanas Phillips,
Han Shao
Abstract:
In recent years, federated learning has been embraced as an approach for bringing about collaboration across large populations of learning agents. However, little is known about how collaboration protocols should take agents' incentives into account when allocating individual resources for communal learning in order to maintain such collaborations. Inspired by game theoretic notions, this paper in…
▽ More
In recent years, federated learning has been embraced as an approach for bringing about collaboration across large populations of learning agents. However, little is known about how collaboration protocols should take agents' incentives into account when allocating individual resources for communal learning in order to maintain such collaborations. Inspired by game theoretic notions, this paper introduces a framework for incentive-aware learning and data sharing in federated learning. Our stable and envy-free equilibria capture notions of collaboration in the presence of agents interested in meeting their learning objectives while keeping their own sample collection burden low. For example, in an envy-free equilibrium, no agent would wish to swap their sampling burden with any other agent and in a stable equilibrium, no agent would wish to unilaterally reduce their sampling burden.
In addition to formalizing this framework, our contributions include characterizing the structural properties of such equilibria, proving when they exist, and showing how they can be computed. Furthermore, we compare the sample complexity of incentive-aware collaboration with that of optimal collaboration when one ignores agents' incentives.
△ Less
Submitted 4 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts
Authors:
Pang Wei Koh,
Shiori Sagawa,
Henrik Marklund,
Sang Michael Xie,
Marvin Zhang,
Akshay Balsubramani,
Weihua Hu,
Michihiro Yasunaga,
Richard Lanas Phillips,
Irena Gao,
Tony Lee,
Etienne David,
Ian Stavness,
Wei Guo,
Berton A. Earnshaw,
Imran S. Haque,
Sara Beery,
Jure Leskovec,
Anshul Kundaje,
Emma Pierson,
Sergey Levine,
Chelsea Finn,
Percy Liang
Abstract:
Distribution shifts -- where the training distribution differs from the test distribution -- can substantially degrade the accuracy of machine learning (ML) systems deployed in the wild. Despite their ubiquity in the real-world deployments, these distribution shifts are under-represented in the datasets widely used in the ML community today. To address this gap, we present WILDS, a curated benchma…
▽ More
Distribution shifts -- where the training distribution differs from the test distribution -- can substantially degrade the accuracy of machine learning (ML) systems deployed in the wild. Despite their ubiquity in the real-world deployments, these distribution shifts are under-represented in the datasets widely used in the ML community today. To address this gap, we present WILDS, a curated benchmark of 10 datasets reflecting a diverse range of distribution shifts that naturally arise in real-world applications, such as shifts across hospitals for tumor identification; across camera traps for wildlife monitoring; and across time and location in satellite imaging and poverty mapping. On each dataset, we show that standard training yields substantially lower out-of-distribution than in-distribution performance. This gap remains even with models trained by existing methods for tackling distribution shifts, underscoring the need for new methods for training models that are more robust to the types of distribution shifts that arise in practice. To facilitate method development, we provide an open-source package that automates dataset loading, contains default model architectures and hyperparameters, and standardizes evaluations. Code and leaderboards are available at https://wilds.stanford.edu.
△ Less
Submitted 16 July, 2021; v1 submitted 14 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Disentangling Influence: Using Disentangled Representations to Audit Model Predictions
Authors:
Charles T. Marx,
Richard Lanas Phillips,
Sorelle A. Friedler,
Carlos Scheidegger,
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Abstract:
Motivated by the need to audit complex and black box models, there has been extensive research on quantifying how data features influence model predictions. Feature influence can be direct (a direct influence on model outcomes) and indirect (model outcomes are influenced via proxy features). Feature influence can also be expressed in aggregate over the training or test data or locally with respect…
▽ More
Motivated by the need to audit complex and black box models, there has been extensive research on quantifying how data features influence model predictions. Feature influence can be direct (a direct influence on model outcomes) and indirect (model outcomes are influenced via proxy features). Feature influence can also be expressed in aggregate over the training or test data or locally with respect to a single point. Current research has typically focused on one of each of these dimensions. In this paper, we develop disentangled influence audits, a procedure to audit the indirect influence of features. Specifically, we show that disentangled representations provide a mechanism to identify proxy features in the dataset, while allowing an explicit computation of feature influence on either individual outcomes or aggregate-level outcomes. We show through both theory and experiments that disentangled influence audits can both detect proxy features and show, for each individual or in aggregate, which of these proxy features affects the classifier being audited the most. In this respect, our method is more powerful than existing methods for ascertaining feature influence.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Interpretable Active Learning
Authors:
Richard L. Phillips,
Kyu Hyun Chang,
Sorelle A. Friedler
Abstract:
Active learning has long been a topic of study in machine learning. However, as increasingly complex and opaque models have become standard practice, the process of active learning, too, has become more opaque. There has been little investigation into interpreting what specific trends and patterns an active learning strategy may be exploring. This work expands on the Local Interpretable Model-agno…
▽ More
Active learning has long been a topic of study in machine learning. However, as increasingly complex and opaque models have become standard practice, the process of active learning, too, has become more opaque. There has been little investigation into interpreting what specific trends and patterns an active learning strategy may be exploring. This work expands on the Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations framework (LIME) to provide explanations for active learning recommendations. We demonstrate how LIME can be used to generate locally faithful explanations for an active learning strategy, and how these explanations can be used to understand how different models and datasets explore a problem space over time. In order to quantify the per-subgroup differences in how an active learning strategy queries spatial regions, we introduce a notion of uncertainty bias (based on disparate impact) to measure the discrepancy in the confidence for a model's predictions between one subgroup and another. Using the uncertainty bias measure, we show that our query explanations accurately reflect the subgroup focus of the active learning queries, allowing for an interpretable explanation of what is being learned as points with similar sources of uncertainty have their uncertainty bias resolved. We demonstrate that this technique can be applied to track uncertainty bias over user-defined clusters or automatically generated clusters based on the source of uncertainty.
△ Less
Submitted 23 June, 2018; v1 submitted 31 July, 2017;
originally announced August 2017.
