arXiv subjects

Golnoosh Farnadi

Publications and source records attributed to Golnoosh Farnadi.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Data as a Lever: A Neighbouring Datasets Perspective on Predictive Multiplicity

Multiplicity, the existence of equally good yet competing models, has received growing attention in recent years. While prior work has emphasized modelling choices, the critical role of data in shaping multiplicity has been largely overlooked. In this work, we first introduce a neighbouring datasets framework, arguing that much of data processing can be reframed as choosing between neighbouring datasets. Under this framework, we find a counterintuitive theoretical relationship: neighbouring datasets with greater inter-class distribution overlap exhibit lower multiplicity. Building on this insight, we apply our framework to two domains: active learning and data imputation. For each, we establish natural extensions of the neighbouring datasets perspective, conduct the first systematic study of multiplicity in existing algorithms, and finally, propose novel multiplicity-aware methods, namely, multiplicity-aware data acquisition strategies for active learning and multiplicity-aware data imputation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Rethinking Hallucinations: Correctness, Consistency, and Prompt Multiplicity

Large language models (LLMs) are known to "hallucinate" by generating false or misleading outputs. Hallucinations pose various harms, from erosion of trust to widespread misinformation. Existing hallucination evaluation, however, focuses only on correctness and often overlooks consistency, necessary to distinguish and address these harms. To bridge this gap, we introduce prompt multiplicity, a framework for quantifying consistency in LLM evaluations. Our analysis reveals significant multiplicity (over 50% inconsistency in benchmarks like Med-HALT), suggesting that hallucination-related harms have been severely misunderstood. Furthermore, we study the role of consistency in hallucination detection and mitigation. We find that: (a) detection techniques detect consistency, not correctness, and (b) mitigation techniques like RAG, while beneficial, can introduce additional inconsistencies. By integrating prompt multiplicity into hallucination evaluation, we provide an improved framework of potential harms and uncover critical limitations in current detection and mitigation strategies.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Multilingual Amnesia: On the Transferability of Unlearning in Multilingual LLMs

As multilingual large language models become more widely used, ensuring their safety and fairness across diverse linguistic contexts presents unique challenges. While existing research on machine unlearning has primarily focused on monolingual settings, typically English, multilingual environments introduce additional complexities due to cross-lingual knowledge transfer and biases embedded in both pretraining and fine-tuning data. In this work, we study multilingual unlearning using the Aya-Expanse 8B model under two settings: (1) data unlearning and (2) concept unlearning. We extend benchmarks for factual knowledge and stereotypes to ten languages through translation: English, French, Arabic, Japanese, Russian, Farsi, Korean, Hindi, Hebrew, and Indonesian. These languages span five language families and a wide range of resource levels. Our experiments show that unlearning in high-resource languages is generally more stable, with asymmetric transfer effects observed between typologically related languages. Furthermore, our analysis of linguistic distances indicates that syntactic similarity is the strongest predictor of cross-lingual unlearning behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Say It Another Way: Auditing LLMs with a User-Grounded Automated Paraphrasing Framework

Large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to subtle changes in prompt phrasing, posing challenges for reliable auditing. Prior methods often apply unconstrained prompt paraphrasing, which risk missing linguistic and demographic factors that shape authentic user interactions. We introduce AUGMENT (Automated User-Grounded Modeling and Evaluation of Natural Language Transformations), a framework for generating controlled paraphrases, grounded in user behaviors. AUGMENT leverages linguistically informed rules and enforces quality through checks on instruction adherence, semantic similarity, and realism, ensuring paraphrases are both reliable and meaningful for auditing. Through case studies on the BBQ and MMLU datasets, we show that controlled paraphrases uncover systematic weaknesses that remain obscured under unconstrained variation. These results highlight the value of the AUGMENT framework for reliable auditing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Erasing More Than Intended? How Concept Erasure Degrades the Generation of Non-Target Concepts

Concept erasure techniques have recently gained significant attention for their potential to remove unwanted concepts from text-to-image models. While these methods often demonstrate promising results in controlled settings, their robustness in real-world applications and suitability for deployment remain uncertain. In this work, we (1) identify a critical gap in evaluating sanitized models, particularly in assessing their performance across diverse concept dimensions, and (2) systematically analyze the failure modes of text-to-image models post-erasure. We focus on the unintended consequences of concept removal on non-target concepts across different levels of interconnected relationships including visually similar, binomial, and semantically related concepts. To address this, we introduce EraseBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating post-erasure performance. EraseBench includes over 100 curated concepts, targeted evaluation prompts, and a robust set of metrics to assess both effectiveness and side effects of erasure. Our findings reveal a phenomenon of concept entanglement, where erasure leads to unintended suppression of non-target concepts, causing spillover degradation that manifests as distortions and a decline in generation quality.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Hallucination Detox: Sensitivity Dropout (SenD) for Large Language Model Training

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent, concerns about their reliability, particularly due to hallucinations - factually inaccurate or irrelevant outputs - have grown. Our research investigates the relationship between the uncertainty in training dynamics and the emergence of hallucinations. Using models from the Pythia suite and several hallucination detection metrics, we analyze hallucination trends and identify significant variance during training. To address this, we propose Sensitivity Dropout (SenD), a novel training protocol designed to reduce hallucination variance during training by deterministically dropping embedding indices with significant variability. In addition, we develop an unsupervised hallucination detection metric, Efficient EigenScore (EES), which approximates the traditional EigenScore in 2x speed. This metric is integrated into our training protocol, allowing SenD to be both computationally scalable and effective at reducing hallucination variance. SenD improves test-time reliability of Pythia and Meta's Llama models by up to 17% and enhances factual accuracy in Wikipedia, Medical, Legal, and Coding domains without affecting downstream task performance.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Designing Ambiguity Sets for Distributionally Robust Optimization Using Structural Causal Optimal Transport

Distributionally robust optimization tackles out-of-sample issues like overfitting and distribution shifts by adopting an adversarial approach over a range of possible data distributions, known as the ambiguity set. To balance conservatism and accuracy, these sets must include realistic probability distributions by leveraging information from the nominal distribution. Assuming that nominal distributions arise from a structural causal model with a directed acyclic graph $\mathcal{G}$ and structural equations, previous methods such as adapted and $\mathcal{G}$-causal optimal transport have only utilized causal graph information in designing ambiguity sets. In this work, we propose incorporating structural equations, which include causal graph information, to enhance ambiguity sets, resulting in more realistic distributions. We introduce structural causal optimal transport and its associated ambiguity set, demonstrating their advantages and connections to previous methods. A key benefit of our approach is a relaxed version, where a regularization term replaces the complex causal constraints, enabling an efficient algorithm via difference-of-convex programming to solve structural causal optimal transport. We also show that when structural information is absent and must be estimated, our approach remains effective and provides finite sample guarantees. Lastly, we address the radius of ambiguity sets, illustrating how our method overcomes the curse of dimensionality in optimal transport problems, achieving faster shrinkage with dimension-free order.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

From Fragile to Certified: Wasserstein Audits of Group Fairness Under Distribution Shift

Group-fairness metrics (e.g., equalized odds) can vary sharply across resamples and are especially brittle under distribution shift, undermining reliable audits. We propose a Wasserstein distributionally robust framework that certifies worst-case group fairness over a ball of plausible test distributions centered at the empirical law. Our formulation unifies common group fairness notions via a generic conditional-probability functional and defines $\varepsilon$-Wasserstein Distributional Fairness ($\varepsilon$-WDF) as the audit target. Leveraging strong duality, we derive tractable reformulations and an efficient estimator (DRUNE) for $\varepsilon$-WDF. We prove feasibility and consistency and establish finite-sample certification guarantees for auditing fairness, along with quantitative bounds under smoothness and margin conditions. Across standard benchmarks and classifiers, $\varepsilon$-WDF delivers stable fairness assessments under distribution shift, providing a principled basis for auditing and certifying group fairness beyond observational data.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Optimization Through the Lens of Structural Causal Models and Individual Fairness

In recent years, Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) has garnered substantial interest for its efficacy in data-driven decision-making under distributional uncertainty. However, limited research has explored the application of DRO to address individual fairness concerns, particularly when considering causal structures and sensitive attributes in learning problems. To address this gap, we first formulate the DRO problem from causality and individual fairness perspectives. We then present the DRO dual formulation as an efficient tool to convert the DRO problem into a more tractable and computationally efficient form. Next, we characterize the closed form of the approximate worst-case loss quantity as a regularizer, eliminating the max-step in the min-max DRO problem. We further estimate the regularizer in more general cases and explore the relationship between DRO and classical robust optimization. Finally, by removing the assumption of a known structural causal model, we provide finite sample error bounds when designing DRO with empirical distributions and estimated causal structures to ensure efficiency and robust learning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Reasoning with Preference Constraints: A Benchmark for Language Models in Many-to-One Matching Markets

Recent advances in reasoning with large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on complex mathematical tasks, including combinatorial optimization. Techniques such as Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning have further enhanced this capability, making LLMs both powerful and accessible tools for a wide range of users, including non-experts. However, applying LLMs to matching problems, which require reasoning under preferential and structural constraints, remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel benchmark of 369 instances of the College Admission Problem, a canonical example of a matching problem with preferences, to evaluate LLMs across key dimensions: feasibility, stability, and optimality. We employ this benchmark to assess the performance of several open-weight LLMs. Our results first reveal that while LLMs can satisfy certain constraints, they struggle to meet all evaluation criteria consistently. They also show that reasoning LLMs, like QwQ and GPT-oss, significantly outperform traditional models such as Llama, Qwen or Mistral, defined here as models used without any dedicated reasoning mechanisms. Moreover, we observed that LLMs reacted differently to the various prompting strategies tested, which include Chain-of-Thought, In-Context Learning and role-based prompting, with no prompt consistently offering the best performance. Finally, we report the performances from iterative prompting with auto-generated feedback and show that they are not monotonic; they can peak early and then significantly decline in later attempts. Overall, this work offers a new perspective on model reasoning performance and the effectiveness of prompting strategies in combinatorial optimization problems with preferential constraints.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aims to be general-purpose. Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs: text summarization, data annotation, and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Towards More Realistic Extraction Attacks: An Adversarial Perspective

Language models are prone to memorizing their training data, making them vulnerable to extraction attacks. While existing research often examines isolated setups, such as a single model or a fixed prompt, real-world adversaries have a considerably larger attack surface due to access to models across various sizes and checkpoints, and repeated prompting. In this paper, we revisit extraction attacks from an adversarial perspective -- with multi-faceted access to the underlying data. We find significant churn in extraction trends, i.e., even unintuitive changes to the prompt, or targeting smaller models and earlier checkpoints, can extract distinct information. By combining multiple attacks, our adversary doubles ($2 \times$) the extraction risks, persisting even under mitigation strategies like data deduplication. We conclude with four case studies, including detecting pre-training data, copyright violations, extracting personally identifiable information, and attacking closed-source models, showing how our more realistic adversary can outperform existing adversaries in the literature.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Systemizing Multiplicity: The Curious Case of Arbitrariness in Machine Learning

Algorithmic modeling relies on limited information in data to extrapolate outcomes for unseen scenarios, often embedding an element of arbitrariness in its decisions. A perspective on this arbitrariness that has recently gained interest is multiplicity-the study of arbitrariness across a set of "good models", i.e., those likely to be deployed in practice. In this work, we systemize the literature on multiplicity by: (a) formalizing the terminology around model design choices and their contribution to arbitrariness, (b) expanding the definition of multiplicity to incorporate underrepresented forms beyond just predictions and explanations, (c) clarifying the distinction between multiplicity and other lenses of arbitrariness, i.e., uncertainty and variance, and (d) distilling the benefits and potential risks of multiplicity into overarching trends, situating it within the broader landscape of responsible AI. We conclude by identifying open research questions and highlighting emerging trends in this young but rapidly growing area of research.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Reviving Your MNEME: Predicting The Side Effects of LLM Unlearning and Fine-Tuning via Sparse Model Diffing

Large language models (LLMs) are frequently fine-tuned or unlearned to adapt to new tasks or eliminate undesirable behaviors. While existing evaluation methods assess performance after such interventions, there remains no general approach for detecting unintended side effects, such as unlearning biology content degrading performance on chemistry tasks, particularly when these effects are unpredictable or emergent. To address this issue, we introduce MNEME, Model diffiNg for Evaluating Mechanistic Effects, a lightweight framework for identifying these side effects using sparse model diffing. MNEME compares base and fine-tuned models on task-agnostic data (for example, The Pile, LMSYS-Chat-1M) without access to fine-tuning data to isolate behavioral shifts. Applied to five LLMs across three scenarios: WMDP knowledge unlearning, emergent misalignment, and benign fine-tuning, MNEME achieves up to 95 percent accuracy in predicting side effects, aligning with known benchmarks and requiring no custom heuristics. Furthermore, we show that retraining on high-activation samples can partially reverse these effects. Our results demonstrate that sparse probing and diffing offer a scalable and automated lens into fine-tuning-induced model changes, providing practical tools for understanding and managing LLM behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Coming Crisis of Multi-Agent Misalignment: AI Alignment Must Be a Dynamic and Social Process

This position paper states that AI Alignment in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) should be considered a dynamic and interaction-dependent process that heavily depends on the social environment where agents are deployed, either collaborative, cooperative, or competitive. While AI alignment with human values and preferences remains a core challenge, the growing prevalence of MAS in real-world applications introduces a new dynamic that reshapes how agents pursue goals and interact to accomplish various tasks. As agents engage with one another, they must coordinate to accomplish both individual and collective goals. However, this complex social organization may unintentionally misalign some or all of these agents with human values or user preferences. Drawing on social sciences, we analyze how social structure can deter or shatter group and individual values. Based on these analyses, we call on the AI community to treat human, preferential, and objective alignment as an interdependent concept, rather than isolated problems. Finally, we emphasize the urgent need for simulation environments, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks that allow researchers to assess alignment in these interactive multi-agent contexts before such dynamics grow too complex to control.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Balancing Profit and Fairness in Risk-Based Pricing Markets

Dynamic, risk-based pricing can systematically exclude vulnerable consumer groups from essential resources such as health insurance and consumer credit. We show that a regulator can realign private incentives with social objectives through a learned, interpretable tax schedule. First, we provide a formal proposition that bounding each firm's \emph{local} demographic gap implicitly bounds the \emph{global} opt-out disparity, motivating firm-level penalties. Building on this insight we introduce \texttt{MarketSim} -- an open-source, scalable simulator of heterogeneous consumers and profit-maximizing firms -- and train a reinforcement learning (RL) social planner (SP) that selects a bracketed fairness-tax while remaining close to a simple linear prior via an $\mathcal{L}_1$ regularizer. The learned policy is thus both transparent and easily interpretable. In two empirically calibrated markets, i.e., U.S. health-insurance and consumer-credit, our planner simultaneously raises demand-fairness by up to $16\%$ relative to unregulated Free Market while outperforming a fixed linear schedule in terms of social welfare without explicit coordination. These results illustrate how AI-assisted regulation can convert a competitive social dilemma into a win-win equilibrium, providing a principled and practical framework for fairness-aware market oversight.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Beyond the Safety Bundle: Auditing the Helpful and Harmless Dataset

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset's content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset's impact on models' safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?

Fairness in federated learning has emerged as a rapidly growing area of research, with numerous works proposing formal definitions and algorithmic interventions. Yet, despite this technical progress, fairness in FL is often defined and evaluated in ways that abstract away from the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems are deployed. In this paper, we argue that existing approaches tend to optimize narrow system level metrics, such as performance parity or contribution-based rewards, while overlooking how harms arise throughout the FL lifecycle and how they impact diverse stakeholders. We support this claim through a critical analysis of the literature, based on a systematic annotation of papers for their fairness definitions, design decisions, evaluation practices, and motivating use cases. Our analysis reveals five recurring pitfalls: 1) fairness framed solely through the lens of server client architecture, 2) a mismatch between simulations and motivating use-cases and contexts, 3) definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users, 4) interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while neglecting upstream and downstream effects, 5) and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment where multiple fairness definitions can be relevant at once. Building on these insights, we propose a harm centered framework that links fairness definitions to concrete risks and stakeholder vulnerabilities. We conclude with recommendations for more holistic, context-aware, and accountable fairness research in FL.

cs.LG↗