Olawale Salaudeen

Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Nicole Chiou, Alexander D'Amour et al.

We address the problem of unsupervised domain adaptation when the source domain differs from the target domain because of a shift in the distribution of a latent subgroup. When this subgroup confounds all observed data, neither covariate shift nor label shift assumptions apply. We show that the optimal target predictor can be non-parametrically identified with the help of concept and proxy variables available only in the source domain, and unlabeled data from the target. The identification results are constructive, immediately suggesting an algorithm for estimating the optimal predictor in the target. For continuous observations, when this algorithm becomes impractical, we propose a latent variable model specific to the data generation process at hand. We show how the approach degrades as the size of the shift changes, and verify that it outperforms both covariate and label shift adjustment.

Olawale Salaudeen, Oluwasanmi Koyejo

We propose a Target Conditioned Representation Independence (TCRI) objective for domain generalization. TCRI addresses the limitations of existing domain generalization methods due to incomplete constraints. Specifically, TCRI implements regularizers motivated by conditional independence constraints that are sufficient to strictly learn complete sets of invariant mechanisms, which we show are necessary and sufficient for domain generalization. Empirically, we show that TCRI is effective on both synthetic and real-world data. TCRI is competitive with baselines in average accuracy while outperforming them in worst-domain accuracy, indicating desired cross-domain stability.

Laura Weidinger, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Hanna Wallach et al.

There is an increasing imperative to anticipate and understand the performance and safety of generative AI systems in real-world deployment contexts. However, the current evaluation ecosystem is insufficient: Commonly used static benchmarks face validity challenges, and ad hoc case-by-case audits rarely scale. In this piece, we advocate for maturing an evaluation science for generative AI systems. While generative AI creates unique challenges for system safety engineering and measurement science, the field can draw valuable insights from the development of safety evaluation practices in other fields, including transportation, aerospace, and pharmaceutical engineering. In particular, we present three key lessons: Evaluation metrics must be applicable to real-world performance, metrics must be iteratively refined, and evaluation institutions and norms must be established. Applying these insights, we outline a concrete path toward a more rigorous approach for evaluating generative AI systems.

Olawale Salaudeen, Anka Reuel, Ahmed Ahmed et al.

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.

Olawale Salaudeen, Moritz Hardt

We introduce ImageNot, a dataset designed to match the scale of ImageNet while differing drastically in other aspects. We show that key model architectures developed for ImageNet over the years rank identically when trained and evaluated on ImageNot to how they rank on ImageNet. This is true when training models from scratch or fine-tuning them. Moreover, the relative improvements of each model over earlier models strongly correlate in both datasets. We further give evidence that ImageNot has a similar utility as ImageNet for transfer learning purposes. Our work demonstrates a surprising degree of external validity in the relative performance of image classification models. This stands in contrast with absolute accuracy numbers that typically drop sharply even under small changes to a dataset.

Katherine Tsai, Stephen R. Pfohl, Olawale Salaudeen et al.

We study the problem of domain adaptation under distribution shift, where the shift is due to a change in the distribution of an unobserved, latent variable that confounds both the covariates and the labels. In this setting, neither the covariate shift nor the label shift assumptions apply. Our approach to adaptation employs proximal causal learning, a technique for estimating causal effects in settings where proxies of unobserved confounders are available. We demonstrate that proxy variables allow for adaptation to distribution shift without explicitly recovering or modeling latent variables. We consider two settings, (i) Concept Bottleneck: an additional ''concept'' variable is observed that mediates the relationship between the covariates and labels; (ii) Multi-domain: training data from multiple source domains is available, where each source domain exhibits a different distribution over the latent confounder. We develop a two-stage kernel estimation approach to adapt to complex distribution shifts in both settings. In our experiments, we show that our approach outperforms other methods, notably those which explicitly recover the latent confounder.

Olawale Salaudeen, Sanmi Koyejo

Given a causal graph representing the data-generating process shared across different domains/distributions, enforcing sufficient graph-implied conditional independencies can identify domain-general (non-spurious) feature representations. For the standard input-output predictive setting, we categorize the set of graphs considered in the literature into two distinct groups: (i) those in which the empirical risk minimizer across training domains gives domain-general representations and (ii) those where it does not. For the latter case (ii), we propose a novel framework with regularizations, which we demonstrate are sufficient for identifying domain-general feature representations without a priori knowledge (or proxies) of the spurious features. Empirically, our proposed method is effective for both (semi) synthetic and real-world data, outperforming other state-of-the-art methods in average and worst-domain transfer accuracy.

Dan Hendrycks, Dawn Song, Christian Szegedy et al.

The lack of a concrete definition for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) obscures the gap between today's specialized AI and human-level cognition. This paper introduces a quantifiable framework to address this, defining AGI as matching the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult. To operationalize this, we ground our methodology in Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory, the most empirically validated model of human cognition. The framework dissects general intelligence into ten core cognitive domains-including reasoning, memory, and perception-and adapts established human psychometric batteries to evaluate AI systems. Application of this framework reveals a highly "jagged" cognitive profile in contemporary models. While proficient in knowledge-intensive domains, current AI systems have critical deficits in foundational cognitive machinery, particularly long-term memory storage. The resulting AGI scores (e.g., GPT-4 at 27%, GPT-5 at 57%) concretely quantify both rapid progress and the substantial gap remaining before AGI.

Tom Sühr, Florian E. Dorner, Olawale Salaudeen et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable results on a range of standardized tests originally designed to assess human cognitive and psychological traits, such as intelligence and personality. While these results are often interpreted as strong evidence of human-like characteristics in LLMs, this paper argues that such interpretations constitute an ontological error. Human psychological and educational tests are theory-driven measurement instruments, calibrated to a specific human population. Applying these tests to non-human subjects without empirical validation, risks mischaracterizing what is being measured. Furthermore, a growing trend frames AI performance on benchmarks as measurements of traits such as ``intelligence'', despite known issues with validity, data contamination, cultural bias and sensitivity to superficial prompt changes. We argue that interpreting benchmark performance as measurements of human-like traits, lacks sufficient theoretical and empirical justification. This leads to our position: Stop Evaluating AI with Human Tests, Develop Principled, AI-specific Tests instead. We call for the development of principled, AI-specific evaluation frameworks tailored to AI systems. Such frameworks might build on existing frameworks for constructing and validating psychometrics tests, or could be created entirely from scratch to fit the unique context of AI.

Stephen R. Pfohl, Natalie Harris, Chirag Nagpal et al.

Disaggregated evaluation across subgroups is critical for assessing the fairness of machine learning models, but its uncritical use can mislead practitioners. We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of the relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities. Furthermore, when data are not representative due to selection bias, both disaggregated evaluation and alternative approaches based on conditional independence testing may be invalid without explicit assumptions regarding the bias mechanism. We use causal graphical models to characterize fairness properties and metric stability across subgroups under different data generating processes. Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift, including conditional independence testing and weighted performance estimation. These findings have broad implications for how practitioners design and interpret model assessments given the ubiquity of disaggregated evaluation.

Olawale Salaudeen, Nicole Chiou, Shiny Weng et al.

Spurious correlations, unstable statistical shortcuts a model can exploit, are expected to degrade performance out-of-distribution (OOD). However, across many popular OOD generalization benchmarks, vanilla empirical risk minimization (ERM) often achieves the highest OOD accuracy. Moreover, gains in in-distribution accuracy generally improve OOD accuracy, a phenomenon termed accuracy on the line, which contradicts the expected harm of spurious correlations. We show that these observations are an artifact of misspecified OOD datasets that do not include shifts in spurious correlations that harm OOD generalization, the setting they are meant to evaluate. Consequently, current practice evaluates "robustness" without truly stressing the spurious signals we seek to eliminate; our work pinpoints when that happens and how to fix it. Contributions. (i) We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for a distribution shift to reveal a model's reliance on spurious features; when these conditions hold, "accuracy on the line" disappears. (ii) We audit leading OOD datasets and find that most still display accuracy on the line, suggesting they are misspecified for evaluating robustness to spurious correlations. (iii) We catalog the few well-specified datasets and summarize generalizable design principles, such as identifying datasets of natural interventions (e.g., a pandemic), to guide future well-specified benchmarks.

Aparna Balagopalan, Kai Wang, Olawale Salaudeen et al.

Machine learning-driven rankings, where individuals (or items) are ranked in response to a query, mediate search exposure or attention in a variety of safety-critical settings. Thus, it is important to ensure that such rankings are fair. Under the goal of equal opportunity, attention allocated to an individual on a ranking interface should be proportional to their relevance across search queries. In this work, we examine amortized fair ranking -- where relevance and attention are cumulated over a sequence of user queries to make fair ranking more feasible in practice. Unlike prior methods that operate on expected amortized attention for each individual, we define new divergence-based measures for attention distribution-based fairness in ranking (DistFaiR), characterizing unfairness as the divergence between the distribution of attention and relevance corresponding to an individual over time. This allows us to propose new definitions of unfairness, which are more reliable at test time. Second, we prove that group fairness is upper-bounded by individual fairness under this definition for a useful class of divergence measures, and experimentally show that maximizing individual fairness through an integer linear programming-based optimization is often beneficial to group fairness. Lastly, we find that prior research in amortized fair ranking ignores critical information about queries, potentially leading to a fairwashing risk in practice by making rankings appear more fair than they actually are.

Olawale Salaudeen, Haoran Zhang, Kumail Alhamoud et al.

Benchmarks for out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization frequently show a strong positive correlation between in-distribution (ID) and OOD accuracy across models, termed "accuracy-on-the-line." This pattern is often taken to imply that spurious correlations - correlations that improve ID but reduce OOD performance - are rare in practice. We find that this positive correlation is often an artifact of aggregating heterogeneous OOD examples. Using a simple gradient-based method, OODSelect, we identify semantically coherent OOD subsets where accuracy on the line does not hold. Across widely used distribution shift benchmarks, the OODSelect uncovers subsets, sometimes over half of the standard OOD set, where higher ID accuracy predicts lower OOD accuracy. Our findings indicate that aggregate metrics can obscure important failure modes of OOD robustness. We release code and the identified subsets to facilitate further research.