Message passing is the dominant paradigm in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). The efficiency of message passing, however, can be limited by the topology of the graph. This happens when information is lost during propagation due to being oversquashed when travelling through bottlenecks. To remedy this, recent efforts have focused on graph rewiring techniques, which disconnect the input graph originating from the data and the computational graph, on which message passing is performed. A prominent approach for this is to use discrete graph curvature measures, of which several variants have been proposed, to identify and rewire around bottlenecks, facilitating information propagation. While oversquashing has been demonstrated in synthetic datasets, in this work we reevaluate the performance gains that curvature-based rewiring brings to real-world datasets. We show that in these datasets, edges selected during the rewiring process are not in line with theoretical criteria identifying bottlenecks. This implies they do not necessarily oversquash information during message passing. Subsequently, we demonstrate that SOTA accuracies on these datasets are outliers originating from sweeps of hyperparameters—both the ones for training and dedicated ones related to the rewiring algorithm—instead of consistent performance gains. In conclusion, our analysis nuances the effectiveness of curvature-based rewiring in real-world datasets and brings a new perspective on the methods to evaluate GNN accuracy improvements.

AI systems can create, propagate, support, and automate bias in decision-making processes. To mitigate biased decisions, we both need to understand the origin of the bias and define what it means for an algorithm to make fair decisions. Most group fairness notions assess a model's equality of outcome by computing statistical metrics on the outputs. We argue that these output metrics encounter intrinsic obstacles and present a complementary approach that aligns with the increasing focus on equality of treatment. By Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design (LUCID), we generate a canonical set that shows the desired inputs for a model given a preferred output. The canonical set reveals the model's internal logic and exposes potential unethical biases by repeatedly interrogating the decision-making process. We evaluate LUCID on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and find that some biases detected by a canonical set differ from those of output metrics. The results show that by shifting the focus towards equality of treatment and looking into the algorithm's internal workings, the canonical sets are a valuable addition to the toolbox of algorithmic fairness evaluation.

We here present a stepping stone towards a deeper understanding of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in the form of a theory of learning in linear CNNs. Through analyzing the gradient descent equations, we discover that the evolution of the network during training is determined by the interplay between the dataset structure and the convolutional network structure. We show that linear CNNs discover the statistical structure of the dataset with non-linear, ordered, stage-like transitions, and that the speed of discovery changes depending on the relationship between the dataset and the convolutional network structure. Moreover, we find that this interplay lies at the heart of what we call the "dominant frequency bias", where linear CNNs arrive at these discoveries using only the dominant frequencies of the different structural parts present in the dataset. We furthermore provide experiments that show how our theory relates to deep, non-linear CNNs used in practice. Our findings shed new light on the inner working of CNNs, and can help explain their shortcut learning and their tendency to rely on texture instead of shape.

Automated decisions based on trained algorithms influence human life in an increasingly far-reaching way. In recent years, it has become clear that these decisions are often accompanied by bias and unfair treatment of different subpopulations.Meanwhile, several notions of fairness circulate in the scientific literature, with trade-offs between profit and fairness and between fairness metrics among themselves. Based on both analytical calculations and numerical simulations, we show in this study that some profit-fairness trade-offs and fairness-fairness trade-offs depend substantially on the underlying score distributions given to subpopulations and we present two complementary perspectives to visualize this influence. We further show that higher symmetry in scores of subpopulations can significantly reduce the trade-offs between fairness notions within a given acceptable strictness, even when sacrificing expressiveness. Our exploratory study may help to understand how to overcome the strict mathematical statements about the statistical incompatibility of certain fairness notions.