Fixing the problems of deep neural networks will require better training data and learning algorithms

Bowers and colleagues argue that DNNs are poor models of biological vision because they often learn to rival human accuracy by relying on strategies that differ markedly from those of humans. We show that this problem is worsening as DNNs are becoming larger-scale and increasingly more accurate, and prescribe methods for building DNNs that can reliably model biological vision.Comment: Published as a commentary in Behavioral and Brain Science

Pre-training also Transfers Non-Robustness

Pre-training has enabled state-of-the-art results on many tasks. In spite of its recognized contribution to generalization, we observed in this study that pre-training also transfers adversarial non-robustness from pre-trained model into fine-tuned model in the downstream tasks. Using image classification as an example, we first conducted experiments on various datasets and network backbones to uncover the adversarial non-robustness in fine-tuned model. Further analysis was conducted on examining the learned knowledge of fine-tuned model and standard model, and revealed that the reason leading to the non-robustness is the non-robust features transferred from pre-trained model. Finally, we analyzed the preference for feature learning of the pre-trained model, explored the factors influencing robustness, and introduced a simple robust pre-traning solution

You Only Need a Good Embeddings Extractor to Fix Spurious Correlations

Spurious correlations in training data often lead to robustness issues since models learn to use them as shortcuts. For example, when predicting whether an object is a cow, a model might learn to rely on its green background, so it would do poorly on a cow on a sandy background. A standard dataset for measuring state-of-the-art on methods mitigating this problem is Waterbirds. The best method (Group Distributionally Robust Optimization - GroupDRO) currently achieves 89\% worst group accuracy and standard training from scratch on raw images only gets 72\%. GroupDRO requires training a model in an end-to-end manner with subgroup labels. In this paper, we show that we can achieve up to 90\% accuracy without using any sub-group information in the training set by simply using embeddings from a large pre-trained vision model extractor and training a linear classifier on top of it. With experiments on a wide range of pre-trained models and pre-training datasets, we show that the capacity of the pre-training model and the size of the pre-training dataset matters. Our experiments reveal that high capacity vision transformers perform better compared to high capacity convolutional neural networks, and larger pre-training dataset leads to better worst-group accuracy on the spurious correlation dataset.Comment: Accepted at ECCV 2022 workshop on Responsible Computer Vision (RCV

On the Value of Out-of-Distribution Testing: An Example of Goodhart's Law

Out-of-distribution (OOD) testing is increasingly popular for evaluating a machine learning system's ability to generalize beyond the biases of a training set. OOD benchmarks are designed to present a different joint distribution of data and labels between training and test time. VQA-CP has become the standard OOD benchmark for visual question answering, but we discovered three troubling practices in its current use. First, most published methods rely on explicit knowledge of the construction of the OOD splits. They often rely on ``inverting'' the distribution of labels, e.g. answering mostly 'yes' when the common training answer is 'no'. Second, the OOD test set is used for model selection. Third, a model's in-domain performance is assessed after retraining it on in-domain splits (VQA v2) that exhibit a more balanced distribution of labels. These three practices defeat the objective of evaluating generalization, and put into question the value of methods specifically designed for this dataset. We show that embarrassingly-simple methods, including one that generates answers at random, surpass the state of the art on some question types. We provide short- and long-term solutions to avoid these pitfalls and realize the benefits of OOD evaluation

Can Language Models perform Abductive Commonsense Reasoning?

Abductive Reasoning is a task of inferring the most plausible hypothesis given a set of observations. In literature, the community has approached to solve this challenge by classifying/generating a likely hypothesis that does not contradict with a past observation and future observation. Some of the most well-known benchmarks that tackle this problem are aNLI and aNLG (pronounced as alpha-NLI and alpha-NLG). In this report, I review over some of the methodologies that were attempted to solve this challenge, re-implement the baseline models, and analyze some of the weaknesses that current approaches have. The code and the re-implemented results are available at this link.Comment: 6 page

One Explanation Does Not Fit XIL

Current machine learning models produce outstanding results in many areas but, at the same time, suffer from shortcut learning and spurious correlations. To address such flaws, the explanatory interactive machine learning (XIL) framework has been proposed to revise a model by employing user feedback on a model's explanation. This work sheds light on the explanations used within this framework. In particular, we investigate simultaneous model revision through multiple explanation methods. To this end, we identified that \textit{one explanation does not fit XIL} and propose considering multiple ones when revising models via XIL