Specification Overfitting in Artificial Intelligence

Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches are often criticized for their inherent bias and for their lack of control, accountability, and transparency. Consequently, regulatory bodies struggle with containing this technology's potential negative side effects. High-level requirements such as fairness and robustness need to be formalized into concrete specification metrics, imperfect proxies that capture isolated aspects of the underlying requirements. Given possible trade-offs between different metrics and their vulnerability to over-optimization, integrating specification metrics in system development processes is not trivial. This paper defines specification overfitting, a scenario where systems focus excessively on specified metrics to the detriment of high-level requirements and task performance. We present an extensive literature survey to categorize how researchers propose, measure, and optimize specification metrics in several AI fields (e.g., natural language processing, computer vision, reinforcement learning). Using a keyword-based search on papers from major AI conferences and journals between 2018 and mid-2023, we identify and analyze 74 papers that propose or optimize specification metrics. We find that although most papers implicitly address specification overfitting (e.g., by reporting more than one specification metric), they rarely discuss which role specification metrics should play in system development or explicitly define the scope and assumptions behind metric formulations.

Functionality learning through specification instructions

Test suites assess natural language processing models' performance on specific functionalities: cases of interest involving model robustness, fairness, or particular linguistic capabilities. They enable fine-grained evaluations of model aspects that would otherwise go unnoticed in standard evaluation datasets, but they do not address the problem of how to fix the failure cases. Previous work has explored functionality learning by fine-tuning models on suite data. While this improves performance on seen functionalities, it often does not generalize to unseen ones and can harm general performance. This paper analyses a fine-tuning-free approach to functionality learning. For each functionality in a suite, we generate a specification instruction that encodes it. We combine the obtained specification instructions to create specification-augmented prompts, which we feed to language models pre-trained on natural instruction data to generate suite predictions. A core aspect of our analysis is to measure the effect that including a set of specifications has on a held-out set of unseen, qualitatively different specifications. Our experiments across four tasks and models ranging from 80M to 175B parameters show that smaller models struggle to follow specification instructions. However, larger models (> 3B params.) can benefit from specifications and even generalize desirable behaviors across functionalities.

Cross-functional Analysis of Generalisation in Behavioural Learning

In behavioural testing, system functionalities underrepresented in the standard evaluation setting (with a held-out test set) are validated through controlled input-output pairs. Optimising performance on the behavioural tests during training (behavioural learning) would improve coverage of phenomena not sufficiently represented in the i.i.d. data and could lead to seemingly more robust models. However, there is the risk that the model narrowly captures spurious correlations from the behavioural test suite, leading to overestimation and misrepresentation of model performance -- one of the original pitfalls of traditional evaluation. In this work, we introduce BeLUGA, an analysis method for evaluating behavioural learning considering generalisation across dimensions of different granularity levels. We optimise behaviour-specific loss functions and evaluate models on several partitions of the behavioural test suite controlled to leave out specific phenomena. An aggregate score measures generalisation to unseen functionalities (or overfitting). We use BeLUGA to examine three representative NLP tasks (sentiment analysis, paraphrase identification and reading comprehension) and compare the impact of a diverse set of regularisation and domain generalisation methods on generalisation performance.

Checking HateCheck: a cross-functional analysis of behaviour-aware learning for hate speech detection

Behavioural testing -- verifying system capabilities by validating human-designed input-output pairs -- is an alternative evaluation method of natural language processing systems proposed to address the shortcomings of the standard approach: computing metrics on held-out data. While behavioural tests capture human prior knowledge and insights, there has been little exploration on how to leverage them for model training and development. With this in mind, we explore behaviour-aware learning by examining several fine-tuning schemes using HateCheck, a suite of functional tests for hate speech detection systems. To address potential pitfalls of training on data originally intended for evaluation, we train and evaluate models on different configurations of HateCheck by holding out categories of test cases, which enables us to estimate performance on potentially overlooked system properties. The fine-tuning procedure led to improvements in the classification accuracy of held-out functionalities and identity groups, suggesting that models can potentially generalise to overlooked functionalities. However, performance on held-out functionality classes and i.i.d. hate speech detection data decreased, which indicates that generalisation occurs mostly across functionalities from the same class and that the procedure led to overfitting to the HateCheck data distribution.