Stochastic systems divergence through reinforcement learning

Les mathématiques offrent un cadre convenable pour raisonner rigoureusement sur les systèmes et phénomènes réels. Par exemple, en génie logiciel, les méthodes formelles sont parmi les outils les plus efficaces pour détecter les anomalies dans les logiciels. Plusieurs systèmes réels sont stochastiques par nature dans le sens où leur comportement est sujet à un aspect d'incertitude. La représentation de ce genre de systèmes requiert des modèles stochastiques comme les processus de Markov étiquetés (LMP), les processus de Markov décisionnels (MDP), etc. Cette thèse porte sur la quantification de la différence entre les systèmes stochastiques. Les contributions majeures sont : 1. une nouvelle approche pour quantifier la divergence entre les systèmes stochastiques basée sur l'apprentissage par renforcement, 2. une nouvelle famille de notions d'équivalence qui se situe entre l'équivalence par trace et la bisimulation, et 3. un cadre plus flexible pour la définition des notions d'équivalence qui se base sur les tests. Le résultat principal de la thèse est que l'apprentissage par renforcement, qui est une branche de l'intelligence artificielle particulièrement efficace en présence d'incertitude, peut être utilisé pour quantifier efficacement cette divergence. L'idée clé est de définir un MDP à partir des systèmes à comparer de telle sorte que la valeur optimale de cet MDP corresponde à la divergence entre eux. La caractéristique la plus attrayante de l'approche proposée est qu'elle est complètement indépendante des structures internes des systèmes à comparer. Pour cette raison, l'approche peut être appliquée à différents types de systèmes stochastiques. La deuxième contribution est une nouvelle famille de notions d'équivalence, que nous appelons moment, qui est plus forte que l'équivalence par trace mais plus faible que la bisimulation. Cette famille se définit naturellement à travers la coïncidence de moments de variable aléatoires (d'où son nom) et possède une caractérisation simple en terme de tests. Nous montrons que moment fait partie d'un cadre plus grand, appelé test-observation-equivalence (TOE), qui constitue la troisième contribution de cette thèse. Il s'agit d'un cadre plus flexible pour la définition des notions d'équivalence basé sur les tests.Modelling real-life systems and phenomena using mathematical based formalisms is ubiquitous in science and engineering. The reason is that mathematics offer a suitable framework to carry out formal and rigorous analysis of these systems. For instance, in software engineering, formal methods are among the most efficient tools to identify flaws in software. The behavior of many real-life systems is inherently stochastic which requires stochastic models such as labelled Markov processes (LMPs), Markov decision processes (MDPs), predictive state representations (PSRs), etc. This thesis is about quantifying the difference between stochastic systems. The main contributions are: 1. a new approach to quantify the divergence between pairs of stochastic systems based on reinforcement learning, 2. a new family of equivalence notions which lies between trace equivalence and bisimulation, and 3. a refined testing framework to define equivalence notions. The important point of the thesis is that reinforcement learning (RL), a branch of artificial intelligence particularly efficient in presence of uncertainty, can be used to quantify efficiently the divergence between stochastic systems. The key idea is to define an MDP out of the systems to be compared and then to interpret the optimal value of the MDP as the divergence between them. The most appealing feature of the proposed approach is that it does not rely on the knowledge of the internal structure of the systems. Only a possibility of interacting with them is required. Because of this, the approach can be extended to different types of stochastic systems. The second contribution is a new family of equivalence notions, moment, that constitute a good compromise between trace equivalence (too weak) and bisimulation (too strong). This family has a natural definition using coincidence of moments of random variables but more importantly, it has a simple testing characterization. moment turns out to be part of a bigger framework called test-observation-equivalence (TOE), which we propose as a third contribution of this thesis. It is a refined testing framework to define equivalence notions with more flexibility

Shedding light on underrepresentation and Sampling Bias in machine learning

Accurately measuring discrimination is crucial to faithfully assessing fairness of trained machine learning (ML) models. Any bias in measuring discrimination leads to either amplification or underestimation of the existing disparity. Several sources of bias exist and it is assumed that bias resulting from machine learning is born equally by different groups (e.g. females vs males, whites vs blacks, etc.). If, however, bias is born differently by different groups, it may exacerbate discrimination against specific sub-populations. Sampling bias, is inconsistently used in the literature to describe bias due to the sampling procedure. In this paper, we attempt to disambiguate this term by introducing clearly defined variants of sampling bias, namely, sample size bias (SSB) and underrepresentation bias (URB). We show also how discrimination can be decomposed into variance, bias, and noise. Finally, we challenge the commonly accepted mitigation approach that discrimination can be addressed by collecting more samples of the underrepresented group

Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions

Addressing the problem of fairness is crucial to safely use machine learning algorithms to support decisions with a critical impact on people's lives such as job hiring, child maltreatment, disease diagnosis, loan granting, etc. Several notions of fairness have been defined and examined in the past decade, such as, statistical parity and equalized odds. The most recent fairness notions, however, are causal-based and reflect the now widely accepted idea that using causality is necessary to appropriately address the problem of fairness. This paper examines an exhaustive list of causal-based fairness notions, in particular their applicability in real-world scenarios. As the majority of causal-based fairness notions are defined in terms of non-observable quantities (e.g. interventions and counterfactuals), their applicability depends heavily on the identifiability of those quantities from observational data. In this paper, we compile the most relevant identifiability criteria for the problem of fairness from the extensive literature on identifiability theory. These criteria are then used to decide about the applicability of causal-based fairness notions in concrete discrimination scenarios

On the Need and Applicability of Causality for Fair Machine Learning

Besides its common use cases in epidemiology, political, and social sciences, causality turns out to be crucial in evaluating the fairness of automated decisions, both in a legal and everyday sense. We provide arguments and examples, of why causality is particularly important for fairness evaluation. In particular, we point out the social impact of non-causal predictions and the legal anti-discrimination process that relies on causal claims. We conclude with a discussion about the challenges and limitations of applying causality in practical scenarios as well as possible solutions

Machine learning fairness notions: Bridging the gap with real-world applications

Fairness emerged as an important requirement to guarantee that Machine Learning (ML) predictive systems do not discriminate against specific individuals or entire sub-populations, in particular, minorities. Given the inherent subjectivity of viewing the concept of fairness, several notions of fairness have been introduced in the literature. This paper is a survey that illustrates the subtleties between fairness notions through a large number of examples and scenarios. In addition, unlike other surveys in the literature, it addresses the question of: which notion of fairness is most suited to a given real-world scenario and why? Our attempt to answer this question consists in (1) identifying the set of fairness-related characteristics of the real-world scenario at hand, (2) analyzing the behavior of each fairness notion, and then (3) fitting these two elements to recommend the most suitable fairness notion in every specific setup. The results are summarized in a decision diagram that can be used by practitioners and policymakers to navigate the relatively large catalog of ML

Shedding light on underrepresentation and Sampling Bias in machine learning

Accurately measuring discrimination is crucial to faithfully assessing fairness of trained machine learning (ML) models. Any bias in measuring discrimination leads to either amplification or underestimation of the existing disparity. Several sources of bias exist and it is assumed that bias resulting from machine learning is born equally by different groups (e.g. females vs males, whites vs blacks, etc.). If, however, bias is born differently by different groups, it may exacerbate discrimination against specific sub-populations. Sampling bias, is inconsistently used in the literature to describe bias due to the sampling procedure. In this paper, we attempt to disambiguate this term by introducing clearly defined variants of sampling bias, namely, sample size bias (SSB) and underrepresentation bias (URB). We show also how discrimination can be decomposed into variance, bias, and noise. Finally, we challenge the commonly accepted mitigation approach that discrimination can be addressed by collecting more samples of the underrepresented group

Dissecting Causal Biases

Accurately measuring discrimination in machine learning-based automated decision systems is required to address the vital issue of fairness between subpopulations and/or individuals. Any bias in measuring discrimination can lead to either amplification or underestimation of the true value of discrimination. This paper focuses on a class of bias originating in the way training data is generated and/or collected. We call such class causal biases and use tools from the field of causality to formally define and analyze such biases. Four sources of bias are considered, namely, confounding, selection, measurement, and interaction. The main contribution of this paper is to provide, for each source of bias, a closed-form expression in terms of the model parameters. This makes it possible to analyze the behavior of each source of bias, in particular, in which cases they are absent and in which other cases they are maximized. We hope that the provided characterizations help the community better understand the sources of bias in machine learning applications

Identifiability of Causal-based ML Fairness Notions

International audienceMachine learning algorithms can produce biased outcome/prediction, typically, against minorities and under-represented sub-populations. Therefore, fairness is emerging as an important requirement for the large scale application of machine learning based technologies. The most commonly used fairness notions (e.g. statistical parity, equalized odds, predictive parity, etc.) are observational and rely on mere correlation between variables. These notions fail to identify bias in case of statistical anomalies such as Simpson's or Berkson's paradoxes. Causality-based fairness notions (e.g. counterfactual fairness, no-proxy discrimination, etc.) are immune to such anomalies and hence more reliable to assess fairness. The problem of causality-based fairness notions, however, is that they are defined in terms of quantities (e.g. causal, counterfactual, and path-specific effects) that are not always measurable. This is known as the identifiability problem and is the topic of a large body of work in the causal inference literature. The first contribution of this paper is a compilation of the major identifiability results which are of particular relevance for machine learning fairness. To the best of our knowledge, no previous work in the field of ML fairness or causal inference provides such systemization of knowledge. The second contribution is more general and addresses the main problem of using causality in machine learning, that is, how to extract causal knowledge from observational data in real scenarios. This paper shows how this can be achieved using identifiability

Finding a Needle in a Haystack: The Traffic Analysis Version

Traffic analysis is the process of extracting useful/sensitive information from observed network traffic. Typical use cases include malware detection and website fingerprinting attacks. High accuracy traffic analysis techniques use machine learning algorithms (e.g. SVM, kNN) and require to split the traffic into correctly separated blocks. Inspired by digital forensics techniques, we propose a new network traffic analysis approach based on similarity digest. The approach features several advantages compared to existing techniques, namely, fast signature generation, compact signature representation using Bloom filters, efficient similarity detection between packet traces of arbitrary sizes, and in particular dropping the traffic splitting requirement altogether. Experimental results show very promising results on VPN and malware traffic, but low results on Tor traffic due mainly to the single-size cells feature