Given a class of machine learning models and sample access to a data distribution with binary labels, which computational task is harder: training a discriminative model that distinguishes positive and negative labels as well as the best member of the class, or training a generative model whose outputs are indistinguishable from real data by all members of the class? We prove that these two fundamental tasks in computational learning theory are not just closely related, but actually equivalent to each other in complexity. One direction of this equivalence was previously known. Indeed, the powerful regularity lemma in complexity theory gives an efficient oracle reduction from the indistinguishability task (a.k.a. multiaccuracy) to the distinguishing task (a.k.a. agnostic learning) in the style of boosting algorithms. Our main contribution is an efficient oracle reduction in the other direction. Taking this idea further, we show that a multiaccuracy oracle is a remarkably powerful primitive, achieving not just agnostic learning but also a wide range of seemingly more demanding learning objectives via similarly efficient and direct constructions. Our results crucially use the power of making adaptive queries to the oracle, and stand in stark contrast to prior work, which showed that post-processing a single multiaccurate predictor is insufficient for even weak forms of learning. On a technical level, we draw a connection between our (offline) problem and a version of no-regret learning in the online setting, which allows us to use follow-the-leader type algorithms to modify the label distribution and aggregate the predictions of the multiaccuracy oracle.
We revisit the foundations of fairness and its interplay with utility and efficiency in settings where the training data contain richer labels, such as individual types, rankings, or risk estimates, rather than just binary outcomes. In this context, we propose algorithms that achieve stronger notions of evidence-based fairness than are possible in standard supervised learning. Our methods support classification and ranking techniques that preserve accurate subpopulation classification rates, as suggested by the underlying data distributions, across a broad class of classification rules and downstream applications. Furthermore, our predictors enable loss minimization, whether aimed at maximizing utility or in the service of fair treatment. Complementing our algorithmic contributions, we present impossibility results demonstrating that simultaneously achieving accurate classification rates and optimal loss minimization is, in some cases, computationally infeasible. Unlike prior impossibility results, our notions are not inherently in conflict and are simultaneously satisfied by the Bayes-optimal predictor. Furthermore, we show that each notion can be satisfied individually via efficient learning. Our separation thus stems from the computational hardness of learning a sufficiently good approximation of the Bayes-optimal predictor. These computational impossibilities present a choice between two natural and attainable notions of accuracy that could both be motivated by fairness.