Abstract

In this paper, we tackle the complex task of analyzing televised debates, with a focus on a prime time news debate show from India. Previous methods, which often relied solely on text, fall short in capturing the multimedia essence of these debates [27]. To address this gap, we introduce a comprehensive automated toolkit that employs advanced computer vision and speech-to-text techniques for large-scale multimedia analysis. Utilizing state-of-the-art computer vision algorithms and speech-to-text methods, we transcribe, diarize, and analyze thousands of YouTube videos of prime-time television debates in India. These debates are a central part of Indian media but have been criticized for compromised journalistic integrity and excessive dramatization [18]. Our toolkit provides concrete metrics to assess bias and incivility, capturing a comprehensive multimedia perspective that includes text, audio utterances, and video frames. Our findings reveal significant biases in topic selection and panelist representation, along with alarming levels of incivility. This work offers a scalable, automated approach for future research in multimedia analysis, with profound implications for the quality of public discourse and democratic debate. We will make our data analysis pipeline and collected data publicly available to catalyze further research in this domain.

Abstract

Language models often exhibit undesirable behavior, e.g., generating toxic or gender-biased text. In the case of neural language models, an encoding of the undesirable behavior is often present in the model's representations. Thus, one natural (and common) approach to prevent the model from exhibiting undesirable behavior is to steer the model's representations in a manner that reduces the probability of it generating undesirable text. This paper investigates the formal and empirical properties of steering functions, i.e., transformation of the neural language model's representations that alter its behavior. First, we derive two optimal, in the least-squares sense, affine steering functions under different constraints. Our theory provides justification for existing approaches and offers a novel, improved steering approach. Second, we offer a series of experiments that demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of the methods in mitigating bias and reducing toxic generation.

Abstract

The default approach to deal with the enormous size and limited accessibility of many Web and social media networks is to sample one or more subnetworks from a conceptually unbounded unknown network. Clearly, the extracted subnetworks will crucially depend on the sampling scheme. Motivated by studies of homophily and opinion formation, we propose a variant of snowball sampling designed to prioritize the inclusion of entire cohesive communities rather than any kind of representativeness, breadth, or depth of coverage. The method is illustrated on a concrete example, and experiments on synthetic networks suggest that it behaves as desired

Abstract

No Results Found

Abstract

Despite recent advancements showcasing the impressive capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in conversational systems, we show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are morally inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability (and trustworthiness in general). Prior works in LLM evaluation focus on developing ground-truth data to measure accuracy on specific tasks. However, for moral scenarios that often lack universally agreed-upon answers, consistency in model responses becomes crucial for their reliability. To address this issue, we propose an information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SaGE), grounded in the concept of "Rules of Thumb" (RoTs) to measure a model's moral consistency. RoTs are abstract principles learned by a model and can help explain their decision-making strategies effectively. To this extent, we construct the Moral Consistency Corpus (MCC), containing 50K moral questions, responses to them by LLMs, and the RoTs that these models followed. Furthermore, to illustrate the generalizability of SaGE, we use it to investigate LLM consistency on two popular datasets -- TruthfulQA and HellaSwag. Our results reveal that task-accuracy and consistency are independent problems, and there is a dire need to investigate these issues further.

Abstract

A Large Language Model (LLM) is considered consistent if semantically equivalent prompts produce semantically equivalent responses. Despite recent advancements showcasing the impressive capabilities of LLMs in conversational systems, we show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are highly inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability. Prior research has tried to measure this with task-specific accuracy. However, this approach is unsuitable for moral scenarios, such as the trolley problem, with no "correct" answer. To address this issue, we propose a novel information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SGE) to measure the consistency of an LLM in moral scenarios. We leverage "Rules of Thumb" (RoTs) to explain a model's decision-making strategies and further enhance our metric. Compared to existing consistency metrics, SGE correlates better with human judgments across five LLMs. In the future, we aim to investigate the root causes of LLM inconsistencies and propose improvements.

Abstract

Unsupervised Representation Learning on graphs is gaining traction due to the increasing abundance of unlabelled network data and the compactness, richness, and usefulness of the representations generated. In this context, the need to consider fairness and bias constraints while generating the representations has been well-motivated and studied to some extent in prior works. One major limitation of most of the prior works in this setting is that they do not aim to address the bias generated due to connectivity patterns in the graphs, such as varied node centrality, which leads to a disproportionate performance across nodes. In our work, we aim to address this issue of mitigating bias due to inherent graph structure in an unsupervised setting. To this end, we propose CAFIN, a centrality-aware fairness-inducing framework that leverages the structural information of graphs to tune the representations generated by existing frameworks. We deploy it on GraphSAGE (a popular framework in this domain) and showcase its efficacy on two downstream tasks – Node Classification and Link Prediction. Empirically, CAFIN consistently reduces the performance disparity across popular datasets (varying from 18 to 80% reduction in performance disparity) from various domains while incurring only a minimal cost of fairness.

Abstract

No Results Found

Abstract

Machine Learning models face increased concerns regarding the storage of personal user data and adverse impacts of corrupted data like backdoors or systematic bias. Machine Unlearning can address these by allowing post-hoc deletion of affected training data from a learned model. Achieving this task exactly is computationally expensive; consequently, recent works have proposed inexact unlearning algorithms to solve this approximately as well as evaluation methods to test the effectiveness of these algorithms. In this work, we first outline some necessary criteria for evaluation methods and show no existing evaluation satisfies them all. Then, we design a stronger black-box evaluation method called the Interclass Confusion (IC) test which adversarially manipulates data during training to detect the insufficiency of unlearning procedures. We also propose two analytically motivated baseline methods~(EU-k and CF-k) which outperform several popular inexact unlearning methods. Overall, we demonstrate how adversarial evaluation strategies can help in analyzing various unlearning phenomena which can guide the development of stronger unlearning algorithms.

Abstract

Prior work has shown that pretrained language models often make incorrect predictions for negated inputs. The reason for this behaviour has remained unclear. It has been argued that since language models (LMs) don’t change their predictions about factual propositions under negation, they might not detect negation. We show encoder LMs do detect negation as their representations across layers reliably distinguish negated inputs from non-negated inputs, and when negation leads to contradictions. However, probing experiments show that these LMs indeed don’t use negation when evaluating whether a factual statement is true, even when fine-tuned with the objective of changing outputs on negated sentences (Hosseini et al., 2021). We hypothesize about why pretrained LMs are inconsistent under negation: when the statement could refer to multiple ground entities with conflicting properties, negation may not entail a change in output. This means negation minimal pairs in different training samples can have the same completion in pretraining corpora. We argue pretraining may not provide enough signal to learn the distribution of ground referents a token could have, confusing the LM on how to handle negation.