The simple idea that not all things are equally difficult has surprising implications when applied in a fairness context. In this work we explore how "difficulty" is model-specific, such that different models find different parts of a dataset challenging. When difficulty correlates with group information, we term this difficulty disparity. Drawing a connection with recent work exploring the inductive bias towards simplicity of SGD-trained models, we show that when such a disparity exists, it is further amplified by commonly-used models. We quantify this amplification factor across a range of settings aiming towards a fuller understanding of the role of model bias. We also present a challenge to the simplifying assumption that "fixing" a dataset is sufficient to ensure unbiased performance.
Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the Multiverse Analysis. Our framework builds upon the Multiverse Analysis (Steegen et al., 2016) introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers. Second, we synthesize conflicting research on the effect of learning rate on the large batch training generalization gap. For the machine learning community, the Multiverse Analysis is a simple and effective technique for identifying robust claims, for increasing transparency, and a step toward improved reproducibility.
We investigate the effect of task ordering on continual learning performance. We conduct an extensive series of empirical experiments on synthetic and naturalistic datasets and show that reordering tasks significantly affects the amount of catastrophic forgetting. Connecting to the field of curriculum learning, we show that the effect of task ordering can be exploited to modify continual learning performance, and present a simple approach for doing so. Our method computes the distance between all pairs of tasks, where distance is defined as the source task curvature of a gradient step toward the target task. Using statistically rigorous methods and sound experimental design, we show that task ordering is an important aspect of continual learning that can be modified for improved performance.
In this paper we explore whether the fundamental tool of experimental psychology, the behavioral experiment, has the power to generate insight not only into humans and animals, but artificial systems too. We apply the techniques of experimental psychology to investigating catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. We present a series of controlled experiments with two-layer ReLU networks, and exploratory results revealing a new understanding of the behavior of catastrophic forgetting. Alongside our empirical findings, we demonstrate an alternative, behavior-first approach to investigating neural network phenomena.
In the early 2010s, a crisis of reproducibility rocked the field of psychology. Following a period of reflection, the field has responded with radical reform of its scientific practices. More recently, similar questions about the reproducibility of machine learning research have also come to the fore. In this short paper, we present select ideas from psychology's reformation, translating them into relevance for a machine learning audience.