Jamelle Watson-Daniels

Jamelle Watson-Daniels, David C. Parkes, Berk Ustun

Machine learning models are often used to inform real world risk assessment tasks: predicting consumer default risk, predicting whether a person suffers from a serious illness, or predicting a person's risk to appear in court. Given multiple models that perform almost equally well for a prediction task, to what extent do predictions vary across these models? If predictions are relatively consistent for similar models, then the standard approach of choosing the model that optimizes a penalized loss suffices. But what if predictions vary significantly for similar models? In machine learning, this is referred to as predictive multiplicity i.e. the prevalence of conflicting predictions assigned by near-optimal competing models. In this paper, we present a framework for measuring predictive multiplicity in probabilistic classification (predicting the probability of a positive outcome). We introduce measures that capture the variation in risk estimates over the set of competing models, and develop optimization-based methods to compute these measures efficiently and reliably for convex empirical risk minimization problems. We demonstrate the incidence and prevalence of predictive multiplicity in real-world tasks. Further, we provide insight into how predictive multiplicity arises by analyzing the relationship between predictive multiplicity and data set characteristics (outliers, separability, and majority-minority structure). Our results emphasize the need to report predictive multiplicity more widely.

Jamelle Watson-Daniels, Solon Barocas, Jake M. Hofman et al.

Prediction models have been widely adopted as the basis for decision-making in domains as diverse as employment, education, lending, and health. Yet, few real world problems readily present themselves as precisely formulated prediction tasks. In particular, there are often many reasonable target variable options. Prior work has argued that this is an important and sometimes underappreciated choice, and has also shown that target choice can have a significant impact on the fairness of the resulting model. However, the existing literature does not offer a formal framework for characterizing the extent to which target choice matters in a particular task. Our work fills this gap by drawing connections between the problem of target choice and recent work on predictive multiplicity. Specifically, we introduce a conceptual and computational framework for assessing how the choice of target affects individuals' outcomes and selection rate disparities across groups. We call this multi-target multiplicity. Along the way, we refine the study of single-target multiplicity by introducing notions of multiplicity that respect resource constraints -- a feature of many real-world tasks that is not captured by existing notions of predictive multiplicity. We apply our methods on a healthcare dataset, and show that the level of multiplicity that stems from target variable choice can be greater than that stemming from nearly-optimal models of a single target.

Gaurav Verma, Minje Choi, Kartik Sharma et al. · gatech

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) like LLaVA and GPT-4(V) enable general-purpose conversations about images with the language modality. As off-the-shelf MLLMs may have limited capabilities on images from domains like dermatology and agriculture, they must be fine-tuned to unlock domain-specific applications. The prevalent architecture of current open-source MLLMs comprises two major modules: an image-language (cross-modal) projection network and a large language model. It is desirable to understand the roles of these two modules in modeling domain-specific visual attributes to inform the design of future models and streamline the interpretability efforts on the current models. To this end, via experiments on 4 datasets and under 2 fine-tuning settings, we find that as the MLLM is fine-tuned, it indeed gains domain-specific visual capabilities, but the updates do not lead to the projection extracting relevant domain-specific visual attributes. Our results indicate that the domain-specific visual attributes are modeled by the LLM, even when only the projection is fine-tuned. Through this study, we offer a potential reinterpretation of the role of cross-modal projections in MLLM architectures. Project webpage: https://claws-lab.github.io/projection-in-MLLMs/

Jamelle Watson-Daniels, Himaghna Bhattacharjee, Skyler Wang et al.

While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This understudied capability is essential for modern models acting as social agents, yet no systematic evaluation methodology targets it. We introduce SCRuB (Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation), a framework designed for this setting of task indeterminacy. Our goal is to measure the degree to which a model reasons about social concepts with the depth and critical rigor of a human expert. SCRuB proceeds in three phases: prompt construction from established sources, response generation by experts and models, and comparative evaluation using a five-dimensional critical thinking rubric. To enable generalization of the pipeline, we introduce a Panel of Disciplinary Perspectives ensemble validated against independent expert judges. We release SCRuBEval (n=4,711 evaluation prompts) and SCRuBAnnotations (300 expert-authored responses and 150 expert comparative judgments from 45 PhD-level scholars). Our results show that frontier models consistently outperform human experts across all five rubric dimensions. Across 1,170 pairwise comparisons, expert judges ranked a model response first in 80.8% of judgments and preferred model responses overall 74.4% of the time. Ultimately, this study provides the first expert-grounded demonstration of evaluation saturation for social concept reasoning: the single-turn exam-style format has reached its ceiling for models and humans alike.

Jamelle Watson-Daniels, Flavio du Pin Calmon, Alexander D'Amour et al.

Issues can arise when research focused on fairness, transparency, or safety is conducted separately from research driven by practical deployment concerns and vice versa. This separation creates a growing need for translational work that bridges the gap between independently studied concepts that may be fundamentally related. This paper explores connections between two seemingly unrelated concepts of predictive inconsistency that share intriguing parallels. The first, known as predictive multiplicity, occurs when models that perform similarly (e.g., nearly equivalent training loss) produce conflicting predictions for individual samples. This concept is often emphasized in algorithmic fairness research as a means of promoting transparency in ML model development. The second concept, predictive churn, examines the differences in individual predictions before and after model updates, a key challenge in deploying ML models in consumer-facing applications. We present theoretical and empirical results that uncover links between these previously disconnected concepts.

Manon Revel, Smitha Milli, Tyler Lu et al.

Online comment sections, such as those on news sites or social media, have the potential to foster informal public deliberation, However, this potential is often undermined by the frequency of toxic or low-quality exchanges that occur in these settings. To combat this, platforms increasingly leverage algorithmic ranking to facilitate higher-quality discussions, e.g., by using civility classifiers or forms of prosocial ranking. Yet, these interventions may also inadvertently reduce the visibility of legitimate viewpoints, undermining another key aspect of deliberation: representation of diverse views. We seek to remedy this problem by introducing guarantees of representation into these methods. In particular, we adopt the notion of justified representation (JR) from the social choice literature and incorporate a JR constraint into the comment ranking setting. We find that enforcing JR leads to greater inclusion of diverse viewpoints while still being compatible with optimizing for user engagement or other measures of conversational quality.

Shomik Jain, Jack Lanchantin, Maximilian Nickel et al. · meta-ai

A large language model can be less helpful if it exhibits output response homogenization. But whether two responses are considered homogeneous, and whether such homogenization is problematic, both depend on the task category. For instance, in objective math tasks, we often expect no variation in the final answer but anticipate variation in the problem-solving strategy. Whereas, for creative writing tasks, we may expect variation in key narrative components (e.g. plot, genre, setting, etc), beyond the vocabulary or embedding diversity produced by temperature-sampling. Previous work addressing output homogenization often fails to conceptualize diversity in a task-dependent way. We address this gap in the literature directly by making the following contributions. (1) We present a task taxonomy comprised of eight task categories that each have distinct conceptualizations of output homogenization. (2) We introduce task-anchored functional diversity to better evaluate output homogenization. (3) We propose a task-anchored sampling technique that increases functional diversity for task categories where homogenization is undesired, while preserving homogenization where it is desired. (4) We challenge the perceived existence of a diversity-quality trade-off by increasing functional diversity while maintaining response quality. Overall, we demonstrate how task dependence improves the evaluation and mitigation of output homogenization.