Towards Measuring Representational Similarity of Large Language Models

Understanding the similarity of the numerous released large language models (LLMs) has many uses, e.g., simplifying model selection, detecting illegal model reuse, and advancing our understanding of what makes LLMs perform well. In this work, we measure the similarity of representations of a set of LLMs with 7B parameters. Our results suggest that some LLMs are substantially different from others. We identify challenges of using representational similarity measures that suggest the need of careful study of similarity scores to avoid false conclusions.

Similarity of Neural Network Models: A Survey of Functional and Representational Measures

Measuring similarity of neural networks has become an issue of great importance and research interest to understand and utilize differences of neural networks. While there are several perspectives on how neural networks can be similar, we specifically focus on two complementing perspectives, i.e., (i) representational similarity, which considers how activations of intermediate neural layers differ, and (ii) functional similarity, which considers how models differ in their outputs. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of these two families of similarity measures for neural network models. In addition to providing detailed descriptions of existing measures, we summarize and discuss results on the properties and relationships of these measures, and point to open research problems. Further, we provide practical recommendations that can guide researchers as well as practitioners in applying the measures. We hope our work lays a foundation for our community to engage in more systematic research on the properties, nature and applicability of similarity measures for neural network models.

On the Prediction Instability of Graph Neural Networks

Instability of trained models, i.e., the dependence of individual node predictions on random factors, can affect reproducibility, reliability, and trust in machine learning systems. In this paper, we systematically assess the prediction instability of node classification with state-of-the-art Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). With our experiments, we establish that multiple instantiations of popular GNN models trained on the same data with the same model hyperparameters result in almost identical aggregated performance but display substantial disagreement in the predictions for individual nodes. We find that up to one third of the incorrectly classified nodes differ across algorithm runs. We identify correlations between hyperparameters, node properties, and the size of the training set with the stability of predictions. In general, maximizing model performance implicitly also reduces model instability.

Updating Embeddings for Dynamic Knowledge Graphs

Data in Knowledge Graphs often represents part of the current state of the real world. Thus, to stay up-to-date the graph data needs to be updated frequently. To utilize information from Knowledge Graphs, many state-of-the-art machine learning approaches use embedding techniques. These techniques typically compute an embedding, i.e., vector representations of the nodes as input for the main machine learning algorithm. If a graph update occurs later on -- specifically when nodes are added or removed -- the training has to be done all over again. This is undesirable, because of the time it takes and also because downstream models which were trained with these embeddings have to be retrained if they change significantly. In this paper, we investigate embedding updates that do not require full retraining and evaluate them in combination with various embedding models on real dynamic Knowledge Graphs covering multiple use cases. We study approaches that place newly appearing nodes optimally according to local information, but notice that this does not work well. However, we find that if we continue the training of the old embedding, interleaved with epochs during which we only optimize for the added and removed parts, we obtain good results in terms of typical metrics used in link prediction. This performance is obtained much faster than with a complete retraining and hence makes it possible to maintain embeddings for dynamic Knowledge Graphs.

Redescription Model Mining

This paper introduces Redescription Model Mining, a novel approach to identify interpretable patterns across two datasets that share only a subset of attributes and have no common instances. In particular, Redescription Model Mining aims to find pairs of describable data subsets -- one for each dataset -- that induce similar exceptional models with respect to a prespecified model class. To achieve this, we combine two previously separate research areas: Exceptional Model Mining and Redescription Mining. For this new problem setting, we develop interestingness measures to select promising patterns, propose efficient algorithms, and demonstrate their potential on synthetic and real-world data. Uncovered patterns can hint at common underlying phenomena that manifest themselves across datasets, enabling the discovery of possible associations between (combinations of) attributes that do not appear in the same dataset.

Surfacing Estimation Uncertainty in the Decay Parameters of Hawkes Processes with Exponential Kernels

As a tool for capturing irregular temporal dependencies (rather than resorting to binning temporal observations to construct time series), Hawkes processes with exponential decay have seen widespread adoption across many application domains, such as predicting the occurrence time of the next earthquake or stock market spike. However, practical applications of Hawkes processes face a noteworthy challenge: There is substantial and often unquantified variance in decay parameter estimations, especially in the case of a small number of observations or when the dynamics behind the observed data suddenly change. We empirically study the cause of these practical challenges and we develop an approach to surface and thereby mitigate them. In particular, our inspections of the Hawkes process likelihood function uncover the properties of the uncertainty when fitting the decay parameter. We thus propose to explicitly capture this uncertainty within a Bayesian framework. With a series of experiments with synthetic and real-world data from domains such as "classical" earthquake modeling or the manifestation of collective emotions on Twitter, we demonstrate that our proposed approach helps to quantify uncertainty and thereby to understand and fit Hawkes processes in practice.

A Comparative Evaluation of Quantification Methods

Quantification represents the problem of predicting class distributions in a given target set. It also represents a growing research field in supervised machine learning, for which a large variety of different algorithms has been proposed in recent years. However, a comprehensive empirical comparison of quantification methods that supports algorithm selection is not available yet. In this work, we close this research gap by conducting a thorough empirical performance comparison of 24 different quantification methods. To consider a broad range of different scenarios for binary as well as multiclass quantification settings, we carried out almost 3 million experimental runs on 40 data sets. We observe that no single algorithm generally outperforms all competitors, but identify a group of methods including the Median Sweep and the DyS framework that perform significantly better in binary settings. For the multiclass setting, we observe that a different, broad group of algorithms yields good performance, including the Generalized Probabilistic Adjusted Count, the readme method, the energy distance minimization method, the EM algorithm for quantification, and Friedman's method. More generally, we find that the performance on multiclass quantification is inferior to the results obtained in the binary setting. Our results can guide practitioners who intend to apply quantification algorithms and help researchers to identify opportunities for future research.

The FairCeptron: A Framework for Measuring Human Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Measures of algorithmic fairness often do not account for human perceptions of fairness that can substantially vary between different sociodemographics and stakeholders. The FairCeptron framework is an approach for studying perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making such as in ranking or classification. It supports (i) studying human perceptions of fairness and (ii) comparing these human perceptions with measures of algorithmic fairness. The framework includes fairness scenario generation, fairness perception elicitation and fairness perception analysis. We demonstrate the FairCeptron framework by applying it to a hypothetical university admission context where we collect human perceptions of fairness in the presence of minorities. An implementation of the FairCeptron framework is openly available, and it can easily be adapted to study perceptions of algorithmic fairness in other application contexts. We hope our work paves the way towards elevating the role of studies of human fairness perceptions in the process of designing algorithmic decision making systems.

Quota-based debiasing can decrease representation of already underrepresented groups

Many important decisions in societies such as school admissions, hiring, or elections are based on the selection of top-ranking individuals from a larger pool of candidates. This process is often subject to biases, which typically manifest as an under-representation of certain groups among the selected or accepted individuals. The most common approach to this issue is debiasing, for example via the introduction of quotas that ensure proportional representation of groups with respect to a certain, often binary attribute. Cases include quotas for women on corporate boards or ethnic quotas in elections. This, however, has the potential to induce changes in representation with respect to other attributes. For the case of two correlated binary attributes we show that quota-based debiasing based on a single attribute can worsen the representation of already underrepresented groups and decrease overall fairness of selection. We use several data sets from a broad range of domains from recidivism risk assessments to scientific citations to assess this effect in real-world settings. Our results demonstrate the importance of including all relevant attributes in debiasing procedures and that more efforts need to be put into eliminating the root causes of inequalities as purely numerical solutions such as quota-based debiasing might lead to unintended consequences.

The Effects of Randomness on the Stability of Node Embeddings

We systematically evaluate the (in-)stability of state-of-the-art node embedding algorithms due to randomness, i.e., the random variation of their outcomes given identical algorithms and graphs. We apply five node embeddings algorithms---HOPE, LINE, node2vec, SDNE, and GraphSAGE---to synthetic and empirical graphs and assess their stability under randomness with respect to (i) the geometry of embedding spaces as well as (ii) their performance in downstream tasks. We find significant instabilities in the geometry of embedding spaces independent of the centrality of a node. In the evaluation of downstream tasks, we find that the accuracy of node classification seems to be unaffected by random seeding while the actual classification of nodes can vary significantly. This suggests that instability effects need to be taken into account when working with node embeddings. Our work is relevant for researchers and engineers interested in the effectiveness, reliability, and reproducibility of node embedding approaches.