Max Klabunde

Max Klabunde, Florian Lemmerich

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.

Andreas Einwiller, Max Klabunde, Florian Lemmerich

The worldwide surge of authoritarianism, combined with the increasing central role in users' everyday lives, raises the question of to what extent specific models exhibit or promote authoritarian attitudes and characteristics. We introduce AuAu, a comprehensive benchmark that aims to assess the risk of LLMs generating responses with authoritarian tendencies. This benchmark combines three evaluation approaches: (i) psychometric questions from an extensive pool of 15 human validated instruments; (ii) contextual behavior vignettes probing intended actions in concrete situations; and (iii) responses to realistic user prompts. Unlike prior work, AuAu evaluates not only a general closeness towards authoritarianism but also the established sub-concepts Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Conventionalism. Evaluating 17 models from China, the EU, Russia, and the USA, we find that all tested models exhibit substantial authoritarian response rates under the psychometric evaluation, though rates drop significantly in increasingly more realistic downstream task. We further find that an authoritarian system prompt easily manipulates 15 out of 17 models to promote increased authoritarianism. Our results underscore the need for continued, systematic auditing of LLM-based AI systems to detect and ultimately mitigate undesired authoritarian tendencies in generated output. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/andreaseinwiller/AuAu

Max Klabunde, Mehdi Ben Amor, Michael Granitzer et al.

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.

M. Klabunde, L. Caspari, F. Lemmerich

The modified universality hypothesis proposed by Jones et al. (2022) suggests that adversarially robust models trained for a given task are highly similar. We revisit the hypothesis and test its generality. While we verify Jones' main claim of high representational similarity in specific settings, results are not consistent across different datasets. We also discover that predictive behavior does not converge with increasing robustness and thus is not universal. We find that differing predictions originate in the classification layer, but show that more universal predictive behavior can be achieved with simple retraining of the classifiers. Overall, our work points towards partial universality of neural networks in specific settings and away from notions of strict universality.

Max Klabunde, Tobias Schumacher, Markus Strohmaier et al.

Measuring similarity of neural networks to understand and improve their behavior has become an issue of great importance and research interest. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of two complementary perspectives of measuring neural network similarity: (i) representational similarity, which considers how activations of intermediate layers differ, and (ii) functional similarity, which considers how models differ in their outputs. In addition to providing detailed descriptions of existing measures, we summarize and discuss results on the properties of and relationships between these measures, and point to open research problems. We hope our work lays a foundation for more systematic research on the properties and applicability of similarity measures for neural network models.

Tobias Schumacher, Hinrikus Wolf, Martin Ritzert et al.

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.