Data practices shape research and practice on fairness in machine learning (fair ML). Critical data studies offer important reflections and critiques for the responsible advancement of the field by highlighting shortcomings and proposing recommendations for improvement. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of fair ML datasets, demonstrating how unreflective yet common practices hinder the reach and reliability of algorithmic fairness findings. We systematically study protected information encoded in tabular datasets and their usage in 280 experiments across 142 publications. Our analyses identify three main areas of concern: (1) a \textbf{lack of representation for certain protected attributes} in both data and evaluations; (2) the widespread \textbf{exclusion of minorities} during data preprocessing; and (3) \textbf{opaque data processing} threatening the generalization of fairness research. By conducting exemplary analyses on the utilization of prominent datasets, we demonstrate how unreflective data decisions disproportionately affect minority groups, fairness metrics, and resultant model comparisons. Additionally, we identify supplementary factors such as limitations in publicly available data, privacy considerations, and a general lack of awareness, which exacerbate these challenges. To address these issues, we propose a set of recommendations for data usage in fairness research centered on transparency and responsible inclusion. This study underscores the need for a critical reevaluation of data practices in fair ML and offers directions to improve both the sourcing and usage of datasets.

Empathy plays a pivotal role in fostering prosocial behavior, often triggered by the sharing of personal experiences through narratives. However, modeling empathy using NLP approaches remains challenging due to its deep interconnection with human interaction dynamics. Previous approaches, which involve fine-tuning language models (LMs) on human-annotated empathic datasets, have had limited success. In our pursuit of improving empathy understanding in LMs, we propose several strategies, including contrastive learning with masked LMs and supervised fine-tuning with Large Language Models (LLMs). While these methods show improvements over previous methods, the overall results remain unsatisfactory. To better understand this trend, we performed an analysis which reveals a low agreement among annotators. This lack of consensus hinders training and highlights the subjective nature of the task. We also explore the cultural impact on annotations. To study this, we meticulously collected story pairs in Urdu language and find that subjectivity in interpreting empathy among annotators appears to be independent of cultural background. The insights from our systematic exploration of LMs' understanding of empathy suggest that there is considerable room for exploration in both task formulation and modeling.

Large pre-trained language models have become popular for many applications and form an important backbone of many downstream tasks in natural language processing (NLP). Applying 'explainable artificial intelligence' (XAI) techniques to enrich such models' outputs is considered crucial for assuring their quality and shedding light on their inner workings. However, large language models are trained on a plethora of data containing a variety of biases, such as gender biases, affecting model weights and, potentially, behavior. Currently, it is unclear to what extent such biases also impact model explanations in possibly unfavorable ways. We create a gender-controlled text dataset, GECO, in which otherwise identical sentences appear in male and female forms. This gives rise to ground-truth 'world explanations' for gender classification tasks, enabling the objective evaluation of the correctness of XAI methods. We also provide GECOBench, a rigorous quantitative evaluation framework benchmarking popular XAI methods, applying them to pre-trained language models fine-tuned to different degrees. This allows us to investigate how pre-training induces undesirable bias in model explanations and to what extent fine-tuning can mitigate such explanation bias. We show a clear dependency between explanation performance and the number of fine-tuned layers, where XAI methods are observed to particularly benefit from fine-tuning or complete retraining of embedding layers. Remarkably, this relationship holds for models achieving similar classification performance on the same task. With that, we highlight the utility of the proposed gender-controlled dataset and novel benchmarking approach for research and development of novel XAI methods. All code including dataset generation, model training, evaluation and visualization is available at: https://github.com/braindatalab/gecobench

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have significantly improved multimodal reasoning tasks, such as visual question answering and image captioning. These models embed multimodal facts within their parameters, rather than relying on external knowledge bases to store factual information explicitly. However, the content discerned by LVLMs may deviate from actual facts due to inherent bias or incorrect inference. To address this issue, we introduce MFC-Bench, a rigorous and comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the factual accuracy of LVLMs across three tasks: Manipulation, Out-of-Context, and Veracity Classification. Through our evaluation on MFC-Bench, we benchmarked 12 diverse and representative LVLMs, uncovering that current models still fall short in multimodal fact-checking and demonstrate insensitivity to various forms of manipulated content. We hope that MFC-Bench could raise attention to the trustworthy artificial intelligence potentially assisted by LVLMs in the future. The MFC-Bench and accompanying resources are publicly accessible at https://github.com/wskbest/MFC-Bench, contributing to ongoing research in the multimodal fact-checking field.

In this work, we introduce the Learnable Response Scoring Function (LARS) for Uncertainty Estimation (UE) in generative Large Language Models (LLMs). Current scoring functions for probability-based UE, such as length-normalized scoring and semantic contribution-based weighting, are designed to solve specific aspects of the problem but exhibit limitations, including the inability to handle biased probabilities and under-performance in low-resource languages like Turkish. To address these issues, we propose LARS, a scoring function that leverages supervised data to capture complex dependencies between tokens and probabilities, thereby producing more reliable and calibrated response scores in computing the uncertainty of generations. Our extensive experiments across multiple datasets show that LARS substantially outperforms existing scoring functions considering various probability-based UE methods.

Recently, transductive learning methods, which leverage holdout sets during training, have gained popularity for their potential to improve speed, accuracy, and fairness in machine learning models. Despite this, the composition of the holdout set itself, particularly the balance of sensitive sub-groups, has been largely overlooked. Our experiments on CIFAR and CelebA datasets show that compositional changes in the holdout set can substantially influence fairness metrics. Imbalanced holdout sets exacerbate existing disparities, while balanced holdouts can mitigate issues introduced by imbalanced training data. These findings underline the necessity of constructing holdout sets that are both diverse and representative.

The generation of text that is increasingly human-like has been enabled by the advent of large language models (LLMs). As the detection of AI-generated content holds significant importance in the fight against issues such as misinformation and academic cheating, numerous studies have been conducted to develop reliable LLM detectors. While promising results have been demonstrated by such detectors on test data, recent research has revealed that they can be circumvented by employing different techniques. In this article, homoglyph-based ($a \rightarrow {\alpha}$) attacks that can be used to circumvent existing LLM detectors are presented. The efficacy of the attacks is illustrated by analizing how homoglyphs shift the tokenization of the text, and thus its token loglikelihoods. A comprehensive evaluation is conducted to assess the effectiveness of homoglyphs on state-of-the-art LLM detectors, including Binoculars, DetectGPT, OpenAI's detector, and watermarking techniques, on five different datasets. A significant reduction in the efficiency of all the studied configurations of detectors and datasets, down to an accuracy of 0.5 (random guessing), is demonstrated by the proposed approach. The results show that homoglyph-based attacks can effectively evade existing LLM detectors, and the implications of these findings are discussed along with possible defenses against such attacks.

Semantic and syntactic bootstrapping posit that children use their prior knowledge of one linguistic domain, say syntactic relations, to help later acquire another, such as the meanings of new words. Empirical results supporting both theories may tempt us to believe that these are different learning strategies, where one may precede the other. Here, we argue that they are instead both contingent on a more general learning strategy for language acquisition: joint learning. Using a series of neural visually-grounded grammar induction models, we demonstrate that both syntactic and semantic bootstrapping effects are strongest when syntax and semantics are learnt simultaneously. Joint learning results in better grammar induction, realistic lexical category learning, and better interpretations of novel sentence and verb meanings. Joint learning makes language acquisition easier for learners by mutually constraining the hypotheses spaces for both syntax and semantics. Studying the dynamics of joint inference over many input sources and modalities represents an important new direction for language modeling and learning research in both cognitive sciences and AI, as it may help us explain how language can be acquired in more constrained learning settings.

Membership inference attacks aim to infer whether an individual record was used to train a model, serving as a key tool for disclosure auditing. While such evaluations are useful to demonstrate risk, they are computationally expensive and often make strong assumptions about potential adversaries' access to models and training environments, and thus do not provide very tight bounds on leakage from potential attacks. We show how prior claims around black-box access being sufficient for optimal membership inference do not hold for most useful settings such as stochastic gradient descent, and that optimal membership inference indeed requires white-box access. We validate our findings with a new white-box inference attack IHA (Inverse Hessian Attack) that explicitly uses model parameters by taking advantage of computing inverse-Hessian vector products. Our results show that both audits and adversaries may be able to benefit from access to model parameters, and we advocate for further research into white-box methods for membership privacy auditing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as "content farm" models (CFMs), to generate synthetic text that could pass for real news articles. This is already happening even for languages that do not have high-quality monolingual LLMs. We show that fine-tuning Llama (v1), mostly trained on English, on as little as 40K Italian news articles, is sufficient for producing news-like texts that native speakers of Italian struggle to identify as synthetic. We investigate three LLMs and three methods of detecting synthetic texts (log-likelihood, DetectGPT, and supervised classification), finding that they all perform better than human raters, but they are all impractical in the real world (requiring either access to token likelihood information or a large dataset of CFM texts). We also explore the possibility of creating a proxy CFM: an LLM fine-tuned on a similar dataset to one used by the real "content farm". We find that even a small amount of fine-tuning data suffices for creating a successful detector, but we need to know which base LLM is used, which is a major challenge. Our results suggest that there are currently no practical methods for detecting synthetic news-like texts 'in the wild', while generating them is too easy. We highlight the urgency of more NLP research on this problem.