Queer In AI: A Case Study in Community-Led Participatory AI

We present Queer in AI as a case study for community-led participatory design in AI. We examine how participatory design and intersectional tenets started and shaped this community's programs over the years. We discuss different challenges that emerged in the process, look at ways this organization has fallen short of operationalizing participatory and intersectional principles, and then assess the organization's impact. Queer in AI provides important lessons and insights for practitioners and theorists of participatory methods broadly through its rejection of hierarchy in favor of decentralization, success at building aid and programs by and for the queer community, and effort to change actors and institutions outside of the queer community. Finally, we theorize how communities like Queer in AI contribute to the participatory design in AI more broadly by fostering cultures of participation in AI, welcoming and empowering marginalized participants, critiquing poor or exploitative participatory practices, and bringing participation to institutions outside of individual research projects. Queer in AI's work serves as a case study of grassroots activism and participatory methods within AI, demonstrating the potential of community-led participatory methods and intersectional praxis, while also providing challenges, case studies, and nuanced insights to researchers developing and using participatory methods.

When does dough become a bagel? Analyzing the remaining mistakes on ImageNet

Image classification accuracy on the ImageNet dataset has been a barometer for progress in computer vision over the last decade. Several recent papers have questioned the degree to which the benchmark remains useful to the community, yet innovations continue to contribute gains to performance, with today's largest models achieving 90%+ top-1 accuracy. To help contextualize progress on ImageNet and provide a more meaningful evaluation for today's state-of-the-art models, we manually review and categorize every remaining mistake that a few top models make in order to provide insight into the long-tail of errors on one of the most benchmarked datasets in computer vision. We focus on the multi-label subset evaluation of ImageNet, where today's best models achieve upwards of 97% top-1 accuracy. Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the supposed mistakes are not mistakes at all, and we uncover new valid multi-labels, demonstrating that, without careful review, we are significantly underestimating the performance of these models. On the other hand, we also find that today's best models still make a significant number of mistakes (40%) that are obviously wrong to human reviewers. To calibrate future progress on ImageNet, we provide an updated multi-label evaluation set, and we curate ImageNet-Major: a 68-example "major error" slice of the obvious mistakes made by today's top models -- a slice where models should achieve near perfection, but today are far from doing so.

Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time

The conventional recipe for maximizing model accuracy is to (1) train multiple models with various hyperparameters and (2) pick the individual model which performs best on a held-out validation set, discarding the remainder. In this paper, we revisit the second step of this procedure in the context of fine-tuning large pre-trained models, where fine-tuned models often appear to lie in a single low error basin. We show that averaging the weights of multiple models fine-tuned with different hyperparameter configurations often improves accuracy and robustness. Unlike a conventional ensemble, we may average many models without incurring any additional inference or memory costs -- we call the results "model soups." When fine-tuning large pre-trained models such as CLIP, ALIGN, and a ViT-G pre-trained on JFT, our soup recipe provides significant improvements over the best model in a hyperparameter sweep on ImageNet. As a highlight, the resulting ViT-G model attains 90.94% top-1 accuracy on ImageNet, a new state of the art. Furthermore, we show that the model soup approach extends to multiple image classification and natural language processing tasks, improves out-of-distribution performance, and improves zero-shot performance on new downstream tasks. Finally, we analytically relate the performance similarity of weight-averaging and logit-ensembling to flatness of the loss and confidence of the predictions, and validate this relation empirically.

No One Representation to Rule Them All: Overlapping Features of Training Methods

Despite being able to capture a range of features of the data, high accuracy models trained with supervision tend to make similar predictions. This seemingly implies that high-performing models share similar biases regardless of training methodology, which would limit ensembling benefits and render low-accuracy models as having little practical use. Against this backdrop, recent work has made very different training techniques, such as large-scale contrastive learning, yield competitively-high accuracy on generalization and robustness benchmarks. This motivates us to revisit the assumption that models necessarily learn similar functions. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of models across hyper-parameters, architectures, frameworks, and datasets. We find that model pairs that diverge more in training methodology display categorically different generalization behavior, producing increasingly uncorrelated errors. We show these models specialize in subdomains of the data, leading to higher ensemble performance: with just 2 models (each with ImageNet accuracy ~76.5%), we can create ensembles with 83.4% (+7% boost). Surprisingly, we find that even significantly low-accuracy models can be used to improve high-accuracy models. Finally, we show diverging training methodology yield representations that capture overlapping (but not supersetting) feature sets which, when combined, lead to increased downstream performance.

Spectral Bias in Practice: The Role of Function Frequency in Generalization

Despite their ability to represent highly expressive functions, deep learning models trained with SGD seem to find simple, constrained solutions that generalize surprisingly well. Spectral bias - the tendency of neural networks to prioritize learning low frequency functions - is one possible explanation for this phenomenon, but so far spectral bias has only been observed in theoretical models and simplified experiments. In this work, we propose methodologies for measuring spectral bias in modern image classification networks. We find that these networks indeed exhibit spectral bias, and that networks that generalize well strike a balance between having enough complexity(i.e. high frequencies) to fit the data while being simple enough to avoid overfitting. For example, we experimentally show that larger models learn high frequencies faster than smaller ones, but many forms of regularization, both explicit and implicit, amplify spectral bias and delay the learning of high frequencies. We also explore the connections between function frequency and image frequency and find that spectral bias is sensitive to the low frequencies prevalent in natural images. Our work enables measuring and ultimately controlling the spectral behavior of neural networks used for image classification, and is a step towards understanding why deep models generalize well

Affinity and Diversity: Quantifying Mechanisms of Data Augmentation

Though data augmentation has become a standard component of deep neural network training, the underlying mechanism behind the effectiveness of these techniques remains poorly understood. In practice, augmentation policies are often chosen using heuristics of either distribution shift or augmentation diversity. Inspired by these, we seek to quantify how data augmentation improves model generalization. To this end, we introduce interpretable and easy-to-compute measures: Affinity and Diversity. We find that augmentation performance is predicted not by either of these alone but by jointly optimizing the two.