The differences between images belonging to fine-grained categories are often subtle and highly localized, and existing explainability techniques for deep learning models are often too diffuse to provide useful and interpretable explanations. We propose a new explainability method (PAIR-X) that leverages both intermediate model activations and backpropagated relevance scores to generate fine-grained, highly-localized pairwise visual explanations. We use animal and building re-identification (re-ID) as a primary case study of our method, and we demonstrate qualitatively improved results over a diverse set of explainability baselines on 35 public re-ID datasets. In interviews, animal re-ID experts were in unanimous agreement that PAIR-X was an improvement over existing baselines for deep model explainability, and suggested that its visualizations would be directly applicable to their work. We also propose a novel quantitative evaluation metric for our method, and demonstrate that PAIR-X visualizations appear more plausible for correct image matches than incorrect ones even when the model similarity score for the pairs is the same. By improving interpretability, PAIR-X enables humans to better distinguish correct and incorrect matches. Our code is available at: https://github.com/pairx-explains/pairx

Machine learning models may capture and amplify biases present in data, leading to disparate test performance across social groups. To better understand, evaluate, and mitigate these possible biases, a deeper theoretical understanding of how model design choices and data distribution properties could contribute to bias is needed. In this work, we contribute a precise analytical theory in the context of ridge regression, both with and without random projections, where the former models neural networks in a simplified regime. Our theory offers a unified and rigorous explanation of machine learning bias, providing insights into phenomena such as bias amplification and minority-group bias in various feature and parameter regimes. For example, we demonstrate that there may be an optimal regularization penalty or training time to avoid bias amplification, and there can be fundamental differences in test error between groups that do not vanish with increased parameterization. Importantly, our theoretical predictions align with several empirical observations reported in the literature.

Within the scaling laws paradigm, which underpins the training of large neural networks like ChatGPT and Llama, we consider a supervised regression setting and establish the existance of a strong form of the model collapse phenomenon, a critical performance degradation due to synthetic data in the training corpus. Our results show that even the smallest fraction of synthetic data (e.g., as little as 1\% of the total training dataset) can still lead to model collapse: larger and larger training sets do not enhance performance. We further investigate whether increasing model size, an approach aligned with current trends in training large language models, exacerbates or mitigates model collapse. In a simplified regime where neural networks are approximated via random projections of tunable size, we both theoretically and empirically show that larger models can amplify model collapse. Interestingly, our theory also indicates that, beyond the interpolation threshold (which can be extremely high for very large datasets), larger models may mitigate the collapse, although they do not entirely prevent it. Our theoretical findings are empirically verified through experiments on language models and feed-forward neural networks for images.

Personal names simultaneously differentiate individuals and categorize them in ways that are important in a given society. While the natural language processing community has thus associated personal names with sociodemographic characteristics in a variety of tasks, researchers have engaged to varying degrees with the established methodological problems in doing so. To guide future work that uses names and sociodemographic characteristics, we provide an overview of relevant research: first, we present an interdisciplinary background on names and naming. We then survey the issues inherent to associating names with sociodemographic attributes, covering problems of validity (e.g., systematic error, construct validity), as well as ethical concerns (e.g., harms, differential impact, cultural insensitivity). Finally, we provide guiding questions along with normative recommendations to avoid validity and ethical pitfalls when dealing with names and sociodemographic characteristics in natural language processing.

Recent improvements in natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) and increased mainstream adoption have led to researchers frequently discussing the "democratization" of artificial intelligence. In this paper, we seek to clarify how democratization is understood in NLP and ML publications, through large-scale mixed-methods analyses of papers using the keyword "democra*" published in NLP and adjacent venues. We find that democratization is most frequently used to convey (ease of) access to or use of technologies, without meaningfully engaging with theories of democratization, while research using other invocations of "democra*" tends to be grounded in theories of deliberation and debate. Based on our findings, we call for researchers to enrich their use of the term democratization with appropriate theory, towards democratic technologies beyond superficial access.

The recent advancement of large and powerful models with Text-to-Image (T2I) generation abilities -- such as OpenAI's DALLE-3 and Google's Gemini -- enables users to generate high-quality images from textual prompts. However, it has become increasingly evident that even simple prompts could cause T2I models to exhibit conspicuous social bias in generated images. Such bias might lead to both allocational and representational harms in society, further marginalizing minority groups. Noting this problem, a large body of recent works has been dedicated to investigating different dimensions of bias in T2I systems. However, an extensive review of these studies is lacking, hindering a systematic understanding of current progress and research gaps. We present the first extensive survey on bias in T2I generative models. In this survey, we review prior studies on dimensions of bias: Gender, Skintone, and Geo-Culture. Specifically, we discuss how these works define, evaluate, and mitigate different aspects of bias. We found that: (1) while gender and skintone biases are widely studied, geo-cultural bias remains under-explored; (2) most works on gender and skintone bias investigated occupational association, while other aspects are less frequently studied; (3) almost all gender bias works overlook non-binary identities in their studies; (4) evaluation datasets and metrics are scattered, with no unified framework for measuring biases; and (5) current mitigation methods fail to resolve biases comprehensively. Based on current limitations, we point out future research directions that contribute to human-centric definitions, evaluations, and mitigation of biases. We hope to highlight the importance of studying biases in T2I systems, as well as encourage future efforts to holistically understand and tackle biases, building fair and trustworthy T2I technologies for everyone.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) often perform better for high-degree nodes than low-degree nodes on node classification tasks. This degree bias can reinforce social marginalization by, e.g., sidelining authors of lowly-cited papers when predicting paper topics in citation networks. While researchers have proposed numerous hypotheses for why GNN degree bias occurs, we find via a survey of 38 degree bias papers that these hypotheses are often not rigorously validated, and can even be contradictory. Thus, we provide an analysis of the origins of degree bias in message-passing GNNs with different graph filters. We prove that high-degree test nodes tend to have a lower probability of misclassification regardless of how GNNs are trained. Moreover, we show that degree bias arises from a variety of factors that are associated with a node's degree (e.g., homophily of neighbors, diversity of neighbors). Furthermore, we show that during training, some GNNs may adjust their loss on low-degree nodes more slowly than on high-degree nodes; however, with sufficiently many epochs of training, message-passing GNNs can achieve their maximum possible training accuracy, which is not significantly limited by their expressive power. Throughout our analysis, we connect our findings to previously-proposed hypotheses for the origins of degree bias, supporting and unifying some while drawing doubt to others. We validate our theoretical findings on 8 common real-world networks, and based on our theoretical and empirical insights, describe a roadmap to alleviate degree bias.

Graph neural network (GNN) link prediction is increasingly deployed in citation, collaboration, and online social networks to recommend academic literature, collaborators, and friends. While prior research has investigated the dyadic fairness of GNN link prediction, the within-group fairness and ``rich get richer'' dynamics of link prediction remain underexplored. However, these aspects have significant consequences for degree and power imbalances in networks. In this paper, we shed light on how degree bias in networks affects Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) link prediction. In particular, we theoretically uncover that GCNs with a symmetric normalized graph filter have a within-group preferential attachment bias. We validate our theoretical analysis on real-world citation, collaboration, and online social networks. We further bridge GCN's preferential attachment bias with unfairness in link prediction and propose a new within-group fairness metric. This metric quantifies disparities in link prediction scores between social groups, towards combating the amplification of degree and power disparities. Finally, we propose a simple training-time strategy to alleviate within-group unfairness, and we show that it is effective on citation, online social, and credit networks.

While code-mixing is a common linguistic practice in many parts of the world, collecting high-quality and low-cost code-mixed data remains a challenge for natural language processing (NLP) research. The recent proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) compels one to ask: how capable are these systems in generating code-mixed data? In this paper, we explore prompting multilingual LLMs in a zero-shot manner to generate code-mixed data for seven languages in South East Asia (SEA), namely Indonesian, Malay, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Tamil, and Singlish. We find that publicly available multilingual instruction-tuned models such as BLOOMZ and Flan-T5-XXL are incapable of producing texts with phrases or clauses from different languages. ChatGPT exhibits inconsistent capabilities in generating code-mixed texts, wherein its performance varies depending on the prompt template and language pairing. For instance, ChatGPT generates fluent and natural Singlish texts (an English-based creole spoken in Singapore), but for English-Tamil language pair, the system mostly produces grammatically incorrect or semantically meaningless utterances. Furthermore, it may erroneously introduce languages not specified in the prompt. Based on our investigation, existing multilingual LLMs exhibit a wide range of proficiency in code-mixed data generation for SEA languages. As such, we advise against using LLMs in this context without extensive human checks.

The expressive power of graph neural networks is usually measured by comparing how many pairs of graphs or nodes an architecture can possibly distinguish as non-isomorphic to those distinguishable by the $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Lehman ($k$-WL) test. In this paper, we uncover misalignments between graph machine learning practitioners' conceptualizations of expressive power and $k$-WL through a systematic analysis of the reliability and validity of $k$-WL. We conduct a survey ($n = 18$) of practitioners to surface their conceptualizations of expressive power and their assumptions about $k$-WL. In contrast to practitioners' opinions, our analysis (which draws from graph theory and benchmark auditing) reveals that $k$-WL does not guarantee isometry, can be irrelevant to real-world graph tasks, and may not promote generalization or trustworthiness. We argue for extensional definitions and measurement of expressive power based on benchmarks. We further contribute guiding questions for constructing such benchmarks, which is critical for graph machine learning practitioners to develop and transparently communicate our understandings of expressive power.