-
The Leaderboard Illusion
Authors:
Shivalika Singh,
Yiyang Nan,
Alex Wang,
Daniel D'Souza,
Sayash Kapoor,
Ahmet Üstün,
Sanmi Koyejo,
Yuntian Deng,
Shayne Longpre,
Noah A. Smith,
Beyza Ermis,
Marzieh Fadaee,
Sara Hooker
Abstract:
Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private test…
▽ More
Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 2025; v1 submitted 29 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
FAIR-Ensemble: When Fairness Naturally Emerges From Deep Ensembling
Authors:
Wei-Yin Ko,
Daniel D'souza,
Karina Nguyen,
Randall Balestriero,
Sara Hooker
Abstract:
Ensembling multiple Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) is a simple and effective way to improve top-line metrics and to outperform a larger single model. In this work, we go beyond top-line metrics and instead explore the impact of ensembling on subgroup performances. Surprisingly, we observe that even with a simple homogeneous ensemble -- all the individual DNNs share the same training set, architecture…
▽ More
Ensembling multiple Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) is a simple and effective way to improve top-line metrics and to outperform a larger single model. In this work, we go beyond top-line metrics and instead explore the impact of ensembling on subgroup performances. Surprisingly, we observe that even with a simple homogeneous ensemble -- all the individual DNNs share the same training set, architecture, and design choices -- the minority group performance disproportionately improves with the number of models compared to the majority group, i.e. fairness naturally emerges from ensembling. Even more surprising, we find that this gain keeps occurring even when a large number of models is considered, e.g. $20$, despite the fact that the average performance of the ensemble plateaus with fewer models. Our work establishes that simple DNN ensembles can be a powerful tool for alleviating disparate impact from DNN classifiers, thus curbing algorithmic harm. We also explore why this is the case. We find that even in homogeneous ensembles, varying the sources of stochasticity through parameter initialization, mini-batch sampling, and data-augmentation realizations, results in different fairness outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 20 December, 2023; v1 submitted 1 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
What Do Compressed Deep Neural Networks Forget?
Authors:
Sara Hooker,
Aaron Courville,
Gregory Clark,
Yann Dauphin,
Andrea Frome
Abstract:
Deep neural network pruning and quantization techniques have demonstrated it is possible to achieve high levels of compression with surprisingly little degradation to test set accuracy. However, this measure of performance conceals significant differences in how different classes and images are impacted by model compression techniques. We find that models with radically different numbers of weight…
▽ More
Deep neural network pruning and quantization techniques have demonstrated it is possible to achieve high levels of compression with surprisingly little degradation to test set accuracy. However, this measure of performance conceals significant differences in how different classes and images are impacted by model compression techniques. We find that models with radically different numbers of weights have comparable top-line performance metrics but diverge considerably in behavior on a narrow subset of the dataset. This small subset of data points, which we term Pruning Identified Exemplars (PIEs) are systematically more impacted by the introduction of sparsity. Compression disproportionately impacts model performance on the underrepresented long-tail of the data distribution. PIEs over-index on atypical or noisy images that are far more challenging for both humans and algorithms to classify. Our work provides intuition into the role of capacity in deep neural networks and the trade-offs incurred by compression. An understanding of this disparate impact is critical given the widespread deployment of compressed models in the wild.
△ Less
Submitted 5 September, 2021; v1 submitted 12 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
The State of Sparsity in Deep Neural Networks
Authors:
Trevor Gale,
Erich Elsen,
Sara Hooker
Abstract:
We rigorously evaluate three state-of-the-art techniques for inducing sparsity in deep neural networks on two large-scale learning tasks: Transformer trained on WMT 2014 English-to-German, and ResNet-50 trained on ImageNet. Across thousands of experiments, we demonstrate that complex techniques (Molchanov et al., 2017; Louizos et al., 2017b) shown to yield high compression rates on smaller dataset…
▽ More
We rigorously evaluate three state-of-the-art techniques for inducing sparsity in deep neural networks on two large-scale learning tasks: Transformer trained on WMT 2014 English-to-German, and ResNet-50 trained on ImageNet. Across thousands of experiments, we demonstrate that complex techniques (Molchanov et al., 2017; Louizos et al., 2017b) shown to yield high compression rates on smaller datasets perform inconsistently, and that simple magnitude pruning approaches achieve comparable or better results. Additionally, we replicate the experiments performed by (Frankle & Carbin, 2018) and (Liu et al., 2018) at scale and show that unstructured sparse architectures learned through pruning cannot be trained from scratch to the same test set performance as a model trained with joint sparsification and optimization. Together, these results highlight the need for large-scale benchmarks in the field of model compression. We open-source our code, top performing model checkpoints, and results of all hyperparameter configurations to establish rigorous baselines for future work on compression and sparsification.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2019;
originally announced February 2019.
-
A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks
Authors:
Sara Hooker,
Dumitru Erhan,
Pieter-Jan Kindermans,
Been Kim
Abstract:
We propose an empirical measure of the approximate accuracy of feature importance estimates in deep neural networks. Our results across several large-scale image classification datasets show that many popular interpretability methods produce estimates of feature importance that are not better than a random designation of feature importance. Only certain ensemble based approaches---VarGrad and Smoo…
▽ More
We propose an empirical measure of the approximate accuracy of feature importance estimates in deep neural networks. Our results across several large-scale image classification datasets show that many popular interpretability methods produce estimates of feature importance that are not better than a random designation of feature importance. Only certain ensemble based approaches---VarGrad and SmoothGrad-Squared---outperform such a random assignment of importance. The manner of ensembling remains critical, we show that some approaches do no better then the underlying method but carry a far higher computational burden.
△ Less
Submitted 4 November, 2019; v1 submitted 27 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
-
The (Un)reliability of saliency methods
Authors:
Pieter-Jan Kindermans,
Sara Hooker,
Julius Adebayo,
Maximilian Alber,
Kristof T. Schütt,
Sven Dähne,
Dumitru Erhan,
Been Kim
Abstract:
Saliency methods aim to explain the predictions of deep neural networks. These methods lack reliability when the explanation is sensitive to factors that do not contribute to the model prediction. We use a simple and common pre-processing step ---adding a constant shift to the input data--- to show that a transformation with no effect on the model can cause numerous methods to incorrectly attribut…
▽ More
Saliency methods aim to explain the predictions of deep neural networks. These methods lack reliability when the explanation is sensitive to factors that do not contribute to the model prediction. We use a simple and common pre-processing step ---adding a constant shift to the input data--- to show that a transformation with no effect on the model can cause numerous methods to incorrectly attribute. In order to guarantee reliability, we posit that methods should fulfill input invariance, the requirement that a saliency method mirror the sensitivity of the model with respect to transformations of the input. We show, through several examples, that saliency methods that do not satisfy input invariance result in misleading attribution.
△ Less
Submitted 2 November, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
