Search for: All records

Recently, there has been an increase in efforts to understand how large language models (LLMs) propagate and amplify social biases. Several works have utilized templates for fairness evaluation, which allow researchers to quantify social biases in the absence of test sets with protected attribute labels. While template evaluation can be a convenient and helpful diagnostic tool to understand model deficiencies, it often uses a simplistic and limited set of templates. In this paper, we study whether bias measurements are sensitive to the choice of templates used for benchmarking. Specifically, we investigate the instability of bias measurements by manually modifying templates proposed in previous works in a semantically-preserving manner and measuring bias across these modifications. We find that bias values and resulting conclusions vary considerably across template modifications on four tasks, ranging from an 81% reduction (NLI) to a 162% increase (MLM) in (task-specific) bias measurements. Our results indicate that quantifying fairness in LLMs, as done in current practice, can be brittle and needs to be approached with more care and caution. 

Training the deep neural networks that dominate NLP requires large datasets. These are often collected automatically or via crowdsourcing, and may exhibit systematic biases or annotation artifacts. By the latter we mean spurious correlations between inputs and outputs that do not represent a generally held causal relationship between features and classes; models that exploit such correlations may appear to perform a given task well, but fail on out of sample data. In this paper, we evaluate use of different attribution methods for aiding identification of training data artifacts. We propose new hybrid approaches that combine saliency maps (which highlight important input features) with instance attribution methods (which retrieve training samples influential to a given prediction). We show that this proposed training-feature attribution can be used to efficiently uncover artifacts in training data when a challenging validation set is available. We also carry out a small user study to evaluate whether these methods are useful to NLP researchers in practice, with promising results. We make code for all methods and experiments in this paper available. 

Widespread adoption of deep models has motivated a pressing need for approaches to interpret network outputs and to facilitate model debugging. Instance attribution methods constitute one means of accomplishing these goals by retrieving training instances that (may have) led to a particular prediction. Influence functions (IF; Koh and Liang 2017) provide machinery for doing this by quantifying the effect that perturbing individual train instances would have on a specific test prediction. However, even approximating the IF is computationally expensive, to the degree that may be prohibitive in many cases. Might simpler approaches (e.g., retrieving train examples most similar to a given test point) perform comparably? In this work, we evaluate the degree to which different potential instance attribution agree with respect to the importance of training samples. We find that simple retrieval methods yield training instances that differ from those identified via gradient-based methods (such as IFs), but that nonetheless exhibit desirable characteristics similar to more complex attribution methods. Code for all methods and experiments in this paper is available at: https://github.com/successar/instance_attributions_NLP. 

Representing knowledge graphs (KGs) by learning embeddings for entities and relations has led to accurate models for existing KG completion benchmarks. However, due to the open-world assumption of existing KGs, evaluation of KG completion uses ranking metrics and triple classification with negative samples, and is thus unable to directly assess models on the goals of the task: completion. In this paper, we first study the shortcomings of these evaluation metrics. Specifically, we demonstrate that these metrics (1) are unreliable for estimating how calibrated the models are, (2) make strong assumptions that are often violated, and 3) do not sufficiently, and consistently, differentiate embedding methods from each other, or from simpler approaches. To address these issues, we gather a semi-complete KG referred as YAGO3-TC, using a random subgraph from the test and validation data of YAGO3-10, which enables us to compute accurate triple classification accuracy on this data. Conducting thorough experiments on existing models, we provide new insights and directions for the KG completion research. Along with the dataset and the open source implementation of the models, we also provide a leaderboard for knowledge graph completion that consists of a hidden, and growing, test set, available at https://pouyapez.github.io/yago3-tc/. 

Representing entities and relations in an embedding space is a well-studied approach for machine learning on relational data. Existing approaches, however, primarily focus on improving accuracy and overlook other aspects such as robustness and interpretability. In this paper, we propose adversarial modifications for link prediction models: identifying the fact to add into or remove from the knowledge graph that changes the prediction for a target fact after the model is retrained. Using these single modifications of the graph, we identify the most influential fact for a predicted link and evaluate the sensitivity of the model to the addition of fake facts. We introduce an efficient approach to estimate the effect of such modifications by approximating the change in the embeddings when the knowledge graph changes. To avoid the combinatorial search over all possible facts, we train a network to decode embeddings to their corresponding graph components, allowing the use of gradient-based optimization to identify the adversarial modification. We use these techniques to evaluate the robustness of link prediction models (by measuring sensitivity to additional facts), study interpretability through the facts most responsible for predictions (by identifying the most influential neighbors), and detect incorrect facts in the knowledge base.