Search for: All records

Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models exacerbate biases or stereotypes present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION) considerably. However, we discover that amplification can be largely attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while our prompts do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently inflates bias measures. Once we account for distributional differences between texts used for training and generation when evaluating amplification, we observe that amplification decreases drastically. Our findings illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in models and their training data, as well as evaluation more broadly, and highlight how confounding factors can impact analyses. 

In-context learning and chain-of-thought prompting have demonstrated surprising performance improvements on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Therefore, understanding the underlying factors enabling these capabilities is crucial. However, the specific aspects of pretraining data that equip models with mathematical reasoning capabilities remain largely unexplored and are less studied systematically. In this study, we identify subsets of model pretraining data that contribute to math reasoning ability of the model, and evaluate it on several mathematical operations (e.g. addition, multiplication) and tasks (e.g. the asdiv dataset). We measure the importance of such subsets by continual training of the model on pretraining data subsets, and then we quantify the change in performance on the mathematical benchmark to assess their importance. If a subset results in an improved performance, we conjecture that such subset contributes to a model's overall mathematical ability. Our results unveil that while training on math-only data contributes to simple arithmetic abilities, it does not solely explain performance on more complex reasoning abilities like chain-of-thought reasoning. We also find that code data contributes to chain-of-thought reasoning while reducing the arithmetic performance. 

The diversity of text can be measured beyond word-level features, however existing diversity evaluation focuses primarily on word-level features. Here we propose a method for evaluating diversity over syntactic features to characterize general repetition in models, beyond frequent n-grams. Specifically, we define syntactic templates (e.g., strings comprising parts-of-speech) and show that models tend to produce templated text in downstream tasks at a higher rate than what is found in human-reference textsWe find that most (76%) templates in model-generated text can be found in pre-training data (compared to only 35% of human-authored text), and are not overwritten during fine-tuning or alignment processes such as RLHF. The connection between templates in generated text and the pre-training data allows us to analyze syntactic templates in models where we do not have the pre-training data.We also find that templates as features are able to differentiate between models, tasks, and domains, and are useful for qualitatively evaluating common model constructions.Finally, we demonstrate the use of templates as a useful tool for analyzing style memorization of training data in LLMs. 

The inevitable appearance of spurious correlations in training datasets hurts the generalization of NLP models on unseen data. Previous work has found that datasets with paired inputs are prone to correlations between a specific part of the input (e.g., the hypothesis in NLI) and the label; consequently, models trained only on those outperform chance. Are these correlations picked up by models trained on the full input data? To address this question, we propose a new evaluation method, Counterfactual Attentiveness Test (CAT). CAT uses counterfactuals by replacing part of the input with its counterpart from a different example (subject to some restrictions), expecting an attentive model to change its prediction. Using CAT, we systematically investigate established supervised and in-context learning models on ten datasets spanning four tasks: natural language inference, reading comprehension, paraphrase detection, and visual & language reasoning. CAT reveals that reliance on such correlations is mainly data-dependent. Surprisingly, we find that GPT3 becomes less attentive with an increased number of demonstrations, while its accuracy on the test data improves. Our results demonstrate that augmenting training or demonstration data with counterfactuals is effective in improving models’ attentiveness. We show that models’ attentiveness measured by CAT reveals different conclusions from solely measuring correlations in data.