Yaning Jia

Yaning Jia, Chunhui Zhang

The Lipschitz bound, a technique from robust statistics, can limit the maximum changes in the output concerning the input, taking into account associated irrelevant biased factors. It is an efficient and provable method for examining the output stability of machine learning models without incurring additional computation costs. Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), which operate on non-Euclidean data, have gained significant attention. However, no previous research has investigated the GNN Lipschitz bounds to shed light on stabilizing model outputs, especially when working on non-Euclidean data with inherent biases. Given the inherent biases in common graph data used for GNN training, it poses a serious challenge to constraining the GNN output perturbations induced by input biases, thereby safeguarding fairness during training. Recently, despite the Lipschitz constant's use in controlling the stability of Euclideanneural networks, the calculation of the precise Lipschitz constant remains elusive for non-Euclidean neural networks like GNNs, especially within fairness contexts. To narrow this gap, we begin with the general GNNs operating on an attributed graph, and formulate a Lipschitz bound to limit the changes in the output regarding biases associated with the input. Additionally, we theoretically analyze how the Lipschitz constant of a GNN model could constrain the output perturbations induced by biases learned from data for fairness training. We experimentally validate the Lipschitz bound's effectiveness in limiting biases of the model output. Finally, from a training dynamics perspective, we demonstrate why the theoretical Lipschitz bound can effectively guide the GNN training to better trade-off between accuracy and fairness.

Zhongyu Ouyang, Chunhui Zhang, Yaning Jia et al.

In modern social media, recommender systems (RecSys) rely on the click-through rate (CTR) as the standard metric to evaluate user engagement. CTR prediction is traditionally framed as a binary classification task to predict whether a user will interact with a given item. However, this approach overlooks the complexity of real-world social modeling, where the user, item, and their interactive features change dynamically in fast-paced online environments. This dynamic nature often leads to model instability, reflected in overfitting short-term fluctuations rather than higher-level interactive patterns. While overfitting calls for more scaled and refined supervisions, current solutions often rely on binary labels that overly simplify fine-grained user preferences through the thresholding process, which significantly reduces the richness of the supervision. Therefore, we aim to alleviate the overfitting problem by increasing the supervision bandwidth in CTR training. Specifically, (i) theoretically, we formulate the impact of fine-grained preferences on model stability as a Lipschitz constrain; (ii) empirically, we discover that scaling the supervision bandwidth can act as an implicit Lipschitz regularizer, stably optimizing existing CTR models to achieve better generalizability. Extensive experiments show that this scaled supervision significantly and consistently improves the optimization process and the performance of existing CTR models, even without the need for additional hyperparameter tuning.

Chiyu Ma, Enpei Zhang, Yilun Zhao et al.

LLM-as-Judge has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to provide reward signals in trainings. While recent work has explored multi-agent extensions such as multi-agent debate and meta-judging to enhance evaluation quality, the question of how intrinsic biases manifest in these settings remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias. We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge. Our results show that debate framework amplifies biases sharply after the initial debate, and this increased bias is sustained in subsequent rounds, while meta-judge approaches exhibit greater resistance. We further investigate the incorporation of PINE, a leading single-agent debiasing method, as a bias-free agent within these systems. The results reveal that this bias-free agent effectively reduces biases in debate settings but provides less benefit in meta-judge scenarios. Our work provides a comprehensive study of bias behavior in multi-agent LLM-as-Judge systems and highlights the need for targeted bias mitigation strategies in collaborative evaluation settings.