BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Levent Sagun

Levent Sagun contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningcond-mat.dis-nnArtificial IntelligenceComputer Visioncs.CYcond-mat.stat-mech

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
9works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

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}.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Finding the Needle in the Haystack with Convolutions: on the benefits of architectural bias

Despite the phenomenal success of deep neural networks in a broad range of learning tasks, there is a lack of theory to understand the way they work. In particular, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are known to perform much better than Fully-Connected Networks (FCNs) on spatially structured data: the architectural structure of CNNs benefits from prior knowledge on the features of the data, for instance their translation invariance. The aim of this work is to understand this fact through the lens of dynamics in the loss landscape. We introduce a method that maps a CNN to its equivalent FCN (denoted as eFCN). Such an embedding enables the comparison of CNN and FCN training dynamics directly in the FCN space. We use this method to test a new training protocol, which consists in training a CNN, embedding it to FCN space at a certain ``relax time'', then resuming the training in FCN space. We observe that for all relax times, the deviation from the CNN subspace is small, and the final performance reached by the eFCN is higher than that reachable by a standard FCN of same architecture. More surprisingly, for some intermediate relax times, the eFCN outperforms the CNN it stemmed, by combining the prior information of the CNN and the expressivity of the FCN in a complementary way. The practical interest of our protocol is limited by the very large size of the highly sparse eFCN. However, it offers interesting insights into the persistence of architectural bias under stochastic gradient dynamics. It shows the existence of some rare basins in the FCN loss landscape associated with very good generalization. These can only be accessed thanks to the CNN prior, which helps navigate the landscape during the early stages of optimization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Post-Workshop Report on Science meets Engineering in Deep Learning, NeurIPS 2019, Vancouver

Science meets Engineering in Deep Learning took place in Vancouver as part of the Workshop section of NeurIPS 2019. As organizers of the workshop, we created the following report in an attempt to isolate emerging topics and recurring themes that have been presented throughout the event. Deep learning can still be a complex mix of art and engineering despite its tremendous success in recent years. The workshop aimed at gathering people across the board to address seemingly contrasting challenges in the problems they are working on. As part of the call for the workshop, particular attention has been given to the interdependence of architecture, data, and optimization that gives rise to an enormous landscape of design and performance intricacies that are not well-understood. This year, our goal was to emphasize the following directions in our community: (i) identify obstacles in the way to better models and algorithms; (ii) identify the general trends from which we would like to build scientific and potentially theoretical understanding; and (iii) the rigorous design of scientific experiments and experimental protocols whose purpose is to resolve and pinpoint the origin of mysteries while ensuring reproducibility and robustness of conclusions. In the event, these topics emerged and were broadly discussed, matching our expectations and paving the way for new studies in these directions. While we acknowledge that the text is naturally biased as it comes through our lens, here we present an attempt to do a fair job of highlighting the outcome of the workshop.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Triple descent and the two kinds of overfitting: Where & why do they appear?

A recent line of research has highlighted the existence of a "double descent" phenomenon in deep learning, whereby increasing the number of training examples $N$ causes the generalization error of neural networks to peak when $N$ is of the same order as the number of parameters $P$. In earlier works, a similar phenomenon was shown to exist in simpler models such as linear regression, where the peak instead occurs when $N$ is equal to the input dimension $D$. Since both peaks coincide with the interpolation threshold, they are often conflated in the litterature. In this paper, we show that despite their apparent similarity, these two scenarios are inherently different. In fact, both peaks can co-exist when neural networks are applied to noisy regression tasks. The relative size of the peaks is then governed by the degree of nonlinearity of the activation function. Building on recent developments in the analysis of random feature models, we provide a theoretical ground for this sample-wise triple descent. As shown previously, the nonlinear peak at $N\!=\!P$ is a true divergence caused by the extreme sensitivity of the output function to both the noise corrupting the labels and the initialization of the random features (or the weights in neural networks). This peak survives in the absence of noise, but can be suppressed by regularization. In contrast, the linear peak at $N\!=\!D$ is solely due to overfitting the noise in the labels, and forms earlier during training. We show that this peak is implicitly regularized by the nonlinearity, which is why it only becomes salient at high noise and is weakly affected by explicit regularization. Throughout the paper, we compare analytical results obtained in the random feature model with the outcomes of numerical experiments involving deep neural networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

A jamming transition from under- to over-parametrization affects loss landscape and generalization

We argue that in fully-connected networks a phase transition delimits the over- and under-parametrized regimes where fitting can or cannot be achieved. Under some general conditions, we show that this transition is sharp for the hinge loss. In the whole over-parametrized regime, poor minima of the loss are not encountered during training since the number of constraints to satisfy is too small to hamper minimization. Our findings support a link between this transition and the generalization properties of the network: as we increase the number of parameters of a given model, starting from an under-parametrized network, we observe that the generalization error displays three phases: (i) initial decay, (ii) increase until the transition point --- where it displays a cusp --- and (iii) slow decay toward a constant for the rest of the over-parametrized regime. Thereby we identify the region where the classical phenomenon of over-fitting takes place, and the region where the model keeps improving, in line with previous empirical observations for modern neural networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Scaling description of generalization with number of parameters in deep learning

Supervised deep learning involves the training of neural networks with a large number $N$ of parameters. For large enough $N$, in the so-called over-parametrized regime, one can essentially fit the training data points. Sparsity-based arguments would suggest that the generalization error increases as $N$ grows past a certain threshold $N^{*}$. Instead, empirical studies have shown that in the over-parametrized regime, generalization error keeps decreasing with $N$. We resolve this paradox through a new framework. We rely on the so-called Neural Tangent Kernel, which connects large neural nets to kernel methods, to show that the initialization causes finite-size random fluctuations $\|f_{N}-\bar{f}_{N}\|\sim N^{-1/4}$ of the neural net output function $f_{N}$ around its expectation $\bar{f}_{N}$. These affect the generalization error $ε_{N}$ for classification: under natural assumptions, it decays to a plateau value $ε_{\infty}$ in a power-law fashion $\sim N^{-1/2}$. This description breaks down at a so-called jamming transition $N=N^{*}$. At this threshold, we argue that $\|f_{N}\|$ diverges. This result leads to a plausible explanation for the cusp in test error known to occur at $N^{*}$. Our results are confirmed by extensive empirical observations on the MNIST and CIFAR image datasets. Our analysis finally suggests that, given a computational envelope, the smallest generalization error is obtained using several networks of intermediate sizes, just beyond $N^{*}$, and averaging their outputs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access