arXiv subjects

Levent Sagun

Publications and source records attributed to Levent Sagun.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Beg to Differ: Understanding Reasoning-Answer Misalignment Across Languages

Large language models demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities through chain-of-thought prompting, but whether this reasoning quality transfers across languages remains underexplored. We introduce a human-validated framework to evaluate whether model-generated reasoning traces logically support their conclusions across languages. Analyzing 65k reasoning traces from GlobalMMLU questions across 6 languages and 6 frontier models, we uncover a critical blind spot: while models achieve high task accuracy, their reasoning can fail to support their conclusions. Reasoning traces in non-Latin scripts show at least twice as much misalignment between their reasoning and conclusions than those in Latin scripts. We develop an error taxonomy through human annotation to characterize these failures, finding they stem primarily from evidential errors (unsupported claims, ambiguous facts) followed by illogical reasoning steps. Our findings demonstrate that current multilingual evaluation practices provide an incomplete picture of model reasoning capabilities and highlight the need for reasoning-aware evaluation frameworks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

LLM Knowledge is Brittle: Truthfulness Representations Rely on Superficial Resemblance

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliable, they must learn robust knowledge that can be generally applied in diverse settings -- often unlike those seen during training. Yet, extensive research has shown that LLM performance can be brittle, with models exhibiting excessive sensitivity to trivial input variations. In this work, we explore whether this brittleness is a direct result of unstable internal knowledge representations. To explore this question, we build on previous work showing that LLM representations encode statement truthfulness -- i.e., true, factual statements can be easily separated from false, inaccurate ones. Specifically, we test the robustness of learned knowledge by evaluating representation separability on samples that have undergone superficial transformations to drive them out-of-distribution (OOD), such as typos or reformulations. By applying semantically-preserving perturbations, we study how separability degrades as statements become more OOD, across four LLM families, five evaluation datasets, and three knowledge probing methods. Our results reveal that internal representations of statement truthfulness collapse as the samples' presentations become less similar to those seen during pre-training. While LLMs can often distinguish between true and false statements when they closely resemble the pre-training data, this ability is highly dependent on the statement's exact surface form. These findings offer a possible explanation for brittle benchmark performance: LLMs may learn shallow, non-robust knowledge representations that allow for only limited generalizability. Our work presents a fundamental challenge for the utility of truthfulness probes, and more broadly, calls for further research on improving the robustness of learned knowledge representations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Learning the Wrong Lessons: Syntactic-Domain Spurious Correlations in Language Models

For an LLM to correctly respond to an instruction it must understand both the semantics and the domain (i.e., subject area) of a given task-instruction pair. However, syntax can also convey implicit information Recent work shows that syntactic templates -- frequent sequences of Part-of-Speech (PoS) tags -- are prevalent in training data and often appear in model outputs. In this work we characterize syntactic templates, domain, and semantics in task-instruction pairs. We identify cases of spurious correlations between syntax and domain, where models learn to associate a domain with syntax during training; this can sometimes override prompt semantics. Using a synthetic training dataset, we find that the syntactic-domain correlation can lower performance (mean 0.51 +/- 0.06) on entity knowledge tasks in OLMo-2 models (1B-13B). We introduce an evaluation framework to detect this phenomenon in trained models, and show that it occurs on a subset of the FlanV2 dataset in open (OLMo-2-7B; Llama-4-Maverick), and closed (GPT-4o) models. Finally, we present a case study on the implications for safety finetuning, showing that unintended syntactic-domain correlations can be used to bypass refusals in OLMo-2-7B Instruct and GPT-4o. Our findings highlight two needs: (1) to explicitly test for syntactic-domain correlations, and (2) to ensure syntactic diversity in training data, specifically within domains, to prevent such spurious correlations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

On the Role of Speech Data in Reducing Toxicity Detection Bias

Text toxicity detection systems exhibit significant biases, producing disproportionate rates of false positives on samples mentioning demographic groups. But what about toxicity detection in speech? To investigate the extent to which text-based biases are mitigated by speech-based systems, we produce a set of high-quality group annotations for the multilingual MuTox dataset, and then leverage these annotations to systematically compare speech- and text-based toxicity classifiers. Our findings indicate that access to speech data during inference supports reduced bias against group mentions, particularly for ambiguous and disagreement-inducing samples. Our results also suggest that improving classifiers, rather than transcription pipelines, is more helpful for reducing group bias. We publicly release our annotations and provide recommendations for future toxicity dataset construction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models

Natural-language assistants are designed to provide users with helpful responses while avoiding harmful outputs, largely achieved through alignment to human preferences. Yet there is limited understanding of whether alignment techniques may inadvertently perpetuate or even amplify harmful biases inherited from their pre-aligned base models. This issue is compounded by the choice of bias evaluation benchmarks in popular preference-finetuned models, which predominantly focus on dominant social categories, such as binary gender, thereby limiting insights into biases affecting underrepresented groups. Towards addressing this gap, we center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias in LLMs. Our key contributions include: 1) a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation modalities across leading preference-finetuned LLMs, highlighting critical gaps in gender-diverse representation, 2) systematic evaluation of gender-diverse biases across 16 models spanning Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) stages, uncovering harms popular bias benchmarks fail to detect, and 3) a flexible framework for measuring harmful biases in implicit reward signals applicable to other social contexts. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning (SFT), and can amplify two forms of real-world gender-diverse harms from their base models: stigmatization and gender non-affirmative language. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices, advocating for the adoption of community-informed bias evaluation frameworks to more effectively identify and address underrepresented harms in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

An Effective Theory of Bias Amplification

Machine learning models can capture and amplify biases present in data, leading to disparate test performance across social groups. To better understand, evaluate, and mitigate these biases, a deeper theoretical understanding of how model design choices and data distribution properties contribute to bias is needed. In this work, we contribute a precise analytical theory in the context of ridge regression, both with and without random projections, where the former models feedforward neural networks in a simplified regime. Our theory offers a unified and rigorous explanation of machine learning bias, providing insights into phenomena such as bias amplification and minority-group bias in various feature and parameter regimes. For example, we observe that there may be an optimal regularization penalty or training time to avoid bias amplification, and there can be differences in test error between groups that are not alleviated with increased parameterization. Importantly, our theoretical predictions align with empirical observations reported in the literature on machine learning bias. We extensively empirically validate our theory on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

A Differentiable Rank-Based Objective For Better Feature Learning

In this paper, we leverage existing statistical methods to better understand feature learning from data. We tackle this by modifying the model-free variable selection method, Feature Ordering by Conditional Independence (FOCI), which is introduced in \cite{azadkia2021simple}. While FOCI is based on a non-parametric coefficient of conditional dependence, we introduce its parametric, differentiable approximation. With this approximate coefficient of correlation, we present a new algorithm called difFOCI, which is applicable to a wider range of machine learning problems thanks to its differentiable nature and learnable parameters. We present difFOCI in three contexts: (1) as a variable selection method with baseline comparisons to FOCI, (2) as a trainable model parametrized with a neural network, and (3) as a generic, widely applicable neural network regularizer, one that improves feature learning with better management of spurious correlations. We evaluate difFOCI on increasingly complex problems ranging from basic variable selection in toy examples to saliency map comparisons in convolutional networks. We then show how difFOCI can be incorporated in the context of fairness to facilitate classifications without relying on sensitive data.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Chained Tuning Leads to Biased Forgetting

Large language models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned for use on downstream tasks, though this can degrade capabilities learned during previous training. This phenomenon, often referred to as catastrophic forgetting, has important potential implications for the safety of deployed models. In this work, we first show that models trained on downstream tasks forget their safety tuning to a greater extent than models trained in the opposite order. Second, we show that forgetting disproportionately impacts safety information about certain groups. To quantify this phenomenon, we define a new metric we term biased forgetting. We conduct a systematic evaluation of the effects of task ordering on forgetting and apply mitigations that can help the model recover from the forgetting observed. We hope our findings can better inform methods for chaining the finetuning of LLMs in continual learning settings to enable training of safer and less toxic models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Reassessing the Validity of Spurious Correlations Benchmarks

Neural networks can fail when the data contains spurious correlations. To understand this phenomenon, researchers have proposed numerous spurious correlations benchmarks upon which to evaluate mitigation methods. However, we observe that these benchmarks exhibit substantial disagreement, with the best methods on one benchmark performing poorly on another. We explore this disagreement, and examine benchmark validity by defining three desiderata that a benchmark should satisfy in order to meaningfully evaluate methods. Our results have implications for both benchmarks and mitigations: we find that certain benchmarks are not meaningful measures of method performance, and that several methods are not sufficiently robust for widespread use. We present a simple recipe for practitioners to choose methods using the most similar benchmark to their given problem.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Networked Inequality: Preferential Attachment Bias in Graph Neural Network Link Prediction

Graph neural network (GNN) link prediction is increasingly deployed in citation, collaboration, and online social networks to recommend academic literature, collaborators, and friends. While prior research has investigated the dyadic fairness of GNN link prediction, the within-group (e.g., queer women) fairness and "rich get richer" dynamics of link prediction remain underexplored. However, these aspects have significant consequences for degree and power imbalances in networks. In this paper, we shed light on how degree bias in networks affects Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) link prediction. In particular, we theoretically uncover that GCNs with a symmetric normalized graph filter have a within-group preferential attachment bias. We validate our theoretical analysis on real-world citation, collaboration, and online social networks. We further bridge GCN's preferential attachment bias with unfairness in link prediction and propose a new within-group fairness metric. This metric quantifies disparities in link prediction scores within social groups, towards combating the amplification of degree and power disparities. Finally, we propose a simple training-time strategy to alleviate within-group unfairness, and we show that it is effective on citation, social, and credit networks.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Weisfeiler and Leman Go Measurement Modeling: Probing the Validity of the WL Test

The expressive power of graph neural networks is usually measured by comparing how many pairs of graphs or nodes an architecture can possibly distinguish as non-isomorphic to those distinguishable by the $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman ($k$-WL) test. In this paper, we uncover misalignments between graph machine learning practitioners' conceptualizations of expressive power and $k$-WL through a systematic analysis of the reliability and validity of $k$-WL. We conduct a survey ($n = 18$) of practitioners to surface their conceptualizations of expressive power and their assumptions about $k$-WL. In contrast to practitioners' beliefs, our analysis (which draws from graph theory and benchmark auditing) reveals that $k$-WL does not guarantee isometry, can be irrelevant to real-world graph tasks, and may not promote generalization or trustworthiness. We argue for extensional definitions and measurement of expressive power based on benchmarks. We further contribute guiding questions for constructing such benchmarks, which is critical for graph machine learning practitioners to develop and transparently communicate our understandings of expressive power.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Simplicity Bias Leads to Amplified Performance Disparities

Which parts of a dataset will a given model find difficult? Recent work has shown that SGD-trained models have a bias towards simplicity, leading them to prioritize learning a majority class, or to rely upon harmful spurious correlations. Here, we show that the preference for "easy" runs far deeper: A model may prioritize any class or group of the dataset that it finds simple-at the expense of what it finds complex-as measured by performance difference on the test set. When subsets with different levels of complexity align with demographic groups, we term this difficulty disparity, a phenomenon that occurs even with balanced datasets that lack group/label associations. We show how difficulty disparity is a model-dependent quantity, and is further amplified in commonly-used models as selected by typical average performance scores. We quantify an amplification factor across a range of settings in order to compare disparity of different models on a fixed dataset. Finally, we present two real-world examples of difficulty amplification in action, resulting in worse-than-expected performance disparities between groups even when using a balanced dataset. The existence of such disparities in balanced datasets demonstrates that merely balancing sample sizes of groups is not sufficient to ensure unbiased performance. We hope this work presents a step towards measurable understanding of the role of model bias as it interacts with the structure of data, and call for additional model-dependent mitigation methods to be deployed alongside dataset audits.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions

As learning machines increase their influence on decisions concerning human lives, analyzing their fairness properties becomes a subject of central importance. Yet, our best tools for measuring the fairness of learning systems are rigid fairness metrics encapsulated as mathematical one-liners, offer limited power to the stakeholders involved in the prediction task, and are easy to manipulate when we exhort excessive pressure to optimize them. To advance these issues, we propose to shift focus from shaping fairness metrics to curating the distributions of examples under which these are computed. In particular, we posit that every claim about fairness should be immediately followed by the tagline "Fair under what examples, and collected by whom?". By highlighting connections to the literature in domain generalization, we propose to measure fairness as the ability of the system to generalize under multiple stress tests -- distributions of examples with social relevance. We encourage each stakeholder to curate one or multiple stress tests containing examples reflecting their (possibly conflicting) interests. The machine passes or fails each stress test by falling short of or exceeding a pre-defined metric value. The test results involve all stakeholders in a discussion about how to improve the learning system, and provide flexible assessments of fairness dependent on context and based on interpretable data. We provide full implementation guidelines for stress testing, illustrate both the benefits and shortcomings of this framework, and introduce a cryptographic scheme to enable a degree of prediction accountability from system providers.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

Understanding out-of-distribution accuracies through quantifying difficulty of test samples

Existing works show that although modern neural networks achieve remarkable generalization performance on the in-distribution (ID) dataset, the accuracy drops significantly on the out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets \cite{recht2018cifar, recht2019imagenet}. To understand why a variety of models consistently make more mistakes in the OOD datasets, we propose a new metric to quantify the difficulty of the test images (either ID or OOD) that depends on the interaction of the training dataset and the model. In particular, we introduce \textit{confusion score} as a label-free measure of image difficulty which quantifies the amount of disagreement on a given test image based on the class conditional probabilities estimated by an ensemble of trained models. Using the confusion score, we investigate CIFAR-10 and its OOD derivatives. Next, by partitioning test and OOD datasets via their confusion scores, we predict the relationship between ID and OOD accuracies for various architectures. This allows us to obtain an estimator of the OOD accuracy of a given model only using ID test labels. Our observations indicate that the biggest contribution to the accuracy drop comes from images with high confusion scores. Upon further inspection, we report on the nature of the misclassified images grouped by their confusion scores: \textit{(i)} images with high confusion scores contain \textit{weak spurious correlations} that appear in multiple classes in the training data and lack clear \textit{class-specific features}, and \textit{(ii)} images with low confusion scores exhibit spurious correlations that belong to another class, namely \textit{class-specific spurious correlations}.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Vision Models Are More Robust And Fair When Pretrained On Uncurated Images Without Supervision

Discriminative self-supervised learning allows training models on any random group of internet images, and possibly recover salient information that helps differentiate between the images. Applied to ImageNet, this leads to object centric features that perform on par with supervised features on most object-centric downstream tasks. In this work, we question if using this ability, we can learn any salient and more representative information present in diverse unbounded set of images from across the globe. To do so, we train models on billions of random images without any data pre-processing or prior assumptions about what we want the model to learn. We scale our model size to dense 10 billion parameters to avoid underfitting on a large data size. We extensively study and validate our model performance on over 50 benchmarks including fairness, robustness to distribution shift, geographical diversity, fine grained recognition, image copy detection and many image classification datasets. The resulting model, not only captures well semantic information, it also captures information about artistic style and learns salient information such as geolocations and multilingual word embeddings based on visual content only. More importantly, we discover that such model is more robust, more fair, less harmful and less biased than supervised models or models trained on object centric datasets such as ImageNet.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

Fairness Indicators for Systematic Assessments of Visual Feature Extractors

Does everyone equally benefit from computer vision systems? Answers to this question become more and more important as computer vision systems are deployed at large scale, and can spark major concerns when they exhibit vast performance discrepancies between people from various demographic and social backgrounds. Systematic diagnosis of fairness, harms, and biases of computer vision systems is an important step towards building socially responsible systems. To initiate an effort towards standardized fairness audits, we propose three fairness indicators, which aim at quantifying harms and biases of visual systems. Our indicators use existing publicly available datasets collected for fairness evaluations, and focus on three main types of harms and bias identified in the literature, namely harmful label associations, disparity in learned representations of social and demographic traits, and biased performance on geographically diverse images from across the world.We define precise experimental protocols applicable to a wide range of computer vision models. These indicators are part of an ever-evolving suite of fairness probes and are not intended to be a substitute for a thorough analysis of the broader impact of the new computer vision technologies. Yet, we believe it is a necessary first step towards (1) facilitating the widespread adoption and mandate of the fairness assessments in computer vision research, and (2) tracking progress towards building socially responsible models. To study the practical effectiveness and broad applicability of our proposed indicators to any visual system, we apply them to off-the-shelf models built using widely adopted model training paradigms which vary in their ability to whether they can predict labels on a given image or only produce the embeddings. We also systematically study the effect of data domain and model size.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2021

On the interplay between data structure and loss function in classification problems

One of the central puzzles in modern machine learning is the ability of heavily overparametrized models to generalize well. Although the low-dimensional structure of typical datasets is key to this behavior, most theoretical studies of overparametrization focus on isotropic inputs. In this work, we instead consider an analytically tractable model of structured data, where the input covariance is built from independent blocks allowing us to tune the saliency of low-dimensional structures and their alignment with respect to the target function. Using methods from statistical physics, we derive a precise asymptotic expression for the train and test error achieved by random feature models trained to classify such data, which is valid for any convex loss function. We study in detail how the data structure affects the double descent curve, and show that in the over-parametrized regime, its impact is greater for logistic loss than for mean-squared loss: the easier the task, the wider the gap in performance at the advantage of the logistic loss. Our insights are confirmed by numerical experiments on MNIST and CIFAR10.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Transformed CNNs: recasting pre-trained convolutional layers with self-attention

Vision Transformers (ViT) have recently emerged as a powerful alternative to convolutional networks (CNNs). Although hybrid models attempt to bridge the gap between these two architectures, the self-attention layers they rely on induce a strong computational bottleneck, especially at large spatial resolutions. In this work, we explore the idea of reducing the time spent training these layers by initializing them as convolutional layers. This enables us to transition smoothly from any pre-trained CNN to its functionally identical hybrid model, called Transformed CNN (T-CNN). With only 50 epochs of fine-tuning, the resulting T-CNNs demonstrate significant performance gains over the CNN (+2.2% top-1 on ImageNet-1k for a ResNet50-RS) as well as substantially improved robustness (+11% top-1 on ImageNet-C). We analyze the representations learnt by the T-CNN, providing deeper insights into the fruitful interplay between convolutions and self-attention. Finally, we experiment initializing the T-CNN from a partially trained CNN, and find that it reaches better performance than the corresponding hybrid model trained from scratch, while reducing training time.

cs.LG↗