Data Debiasing with Datamodels (D3M): Improving Subgroup Robustness via Data Selection

Machine learning models can fail on subgroups that are underrepresented during training. While techniques such as dataset balancing can improve performance on underperforming groups, they require access to training group annotations and can end up removing large portions of the dataset. In this paper, we introduce Data Debiasing with Datamodels (D3M), a debiasing approach which isolates and removes specific training examples that drive the model's failures on minority groups. Our approach enables us to efficiently train debiased classifiers while removing only a small number of examples, and does not require training group annotations or additional hyperparameter tuning.

Measuring Strategization in Recommendation: Users Adapt Their Behavior to Shape Future Content

Most modern recommendation algorithms are data-driven: they generate personalized recommendations by observing users' past behaviors. A common assumption in recommendation is that how a user interacts with a piece of content (e.g., whether they choose to "like" it) is a reflection of the content, but not of the algorithm that generated it. Although this assumption is convenient, it fails to capture user strategization: that users may attempt to shape their future recommendations by adapting their behavior to the recommendation algorithm. In this work, we test for user strategization by conducting a lab experiment and survey. To capture strategization, we adopt a model in which strategic users select their engagement behavior based not only on the content, but also on how their behavior affects downstream recommendations. Using a custom music player that we built, we study how users respond to different information about their recommendation algorithm as well as to different incentives about how their actions affect downstream outcomes. We find strong evidence of strategization across outcome metrics, including participants' dwell time and use of "likes." For example, participants who are told that the algorithm mainly pays attention to "likes" and "dislikes" use those functions 1.9x more than participants told that the algorithm mainly pays attention to dwell time. A close analysis of participant behavior (e.g., in response to our incentive conditions) rules out experimenter demand as the main driver of these trends. Further, in our post-experiment survey, nearly half of participants self-report strategizing "in the wild," with some stating that they ignore content they actually like to avoid over-recommendation of that content in the future. Together, our findings suggest that user strategization is common and that platforms cannot ignore the effect of their algorithms on user behavior.

Decomposing and Editing Predictions by Modeling Model Computation

How does the internal computation of a machine learning model transform inputs into predictions? In this paper, we introduce a task called component modeling that aims to address this question. The goal of component modeling is to decompose an ML model's prediction in terms of its components -- simple functions (e.g., convolution filters, attention heads) that are the "building blocks" of model computation. We focus on a special case of this task, component attribution, where the goal is to estimate the counterfactual impact of individual components on a given prediction. We then present COAR, a scalable algorithm for estimating component attributions; we demonstrate its effectiveness across models, datasets, and modalities. Finally, we show that component attributions estimated with COAR directly enable model editing across five tasks, namely: fixing model errors, ``forgetting'' specific classes, boosting subpopulation robustness, localizing backdoor attacks, and improving robustness to typographic attacks. We provide code for COAR at https://github.com/MadryLab/modelcomponents .

User Strategization and Trustworthy Algorithms

Many human-facing algorithms -- including those that power recommender systems or hiring decision tools -- are trained on data provided by their users. The developers of these algorithms commonly adopt the assumption that the data generating process is exogenous: that is, how a user reacts to a given prompt (e.g., a recommendation or hiring suggestion) depends on the prompt and not on the algorithm that generated it. For example, the assumption that a person's behavior follows a ground-truth distribution is an exogeneity assumption. In practice, when algorithms interact with humans, this assumption rarely holds because users can be strategic. Recent studies document, for example, TikTok users changing their scrolling behavior after learning that TikTok uses it to curate their feed, and Uber drivers changing how they accept and cancel rides in response to changes in Uber's algorithm. Our work studies the implications of this strategic behavior by modeling the interactions between a user and their data-driven platform as a repeated, two-player game. We first find that user strategization can actually help platforms in the short term. We then show that it corrupts platforms' data and ultimately hurts their ability to make counterfactual decisions. We connect this phenomenon to user trust, and show that designing trustworthy algorithms can go hand in hand with accurate estimation. Finally, we provide a formalization of trustworthiness that inspires potential interventions.

Rethinking Backdoor Attacks

In a backdoor attack, an adversary inserts maliciously constructed backdoor examples into a training set to make the resulting model vulnerable to manipulation. Defending against such attacks typically involves viewing these inserted examples as outliers in the training set and using techniques from robust statistics to detect and remove them. In this work, we present a different approach to the backdoor attack problem. Specifically, we show that without structural information about the training data distribution, backdoor attacks are indistinguishable from naturally-occurring features in the data--and thus impossible to "detect" in a general sense. Then, guided by this observation, we revisit existing defenses against backdoor attacks and characterize the (often latent) assumptions they make and on which they depend. Finally, we explore an alternative perspective on backdoor attacks: one that assumes these attacks correspond to the strongest feature in the training data. Under this assumption (which we make formal) we develop a new primitive for detecting backdoor attacks. Our primitive naturally gives rise to a detection algorithm that comes with theoretical guarantees and is effective in practice.

FFCV: Accelerating Training by Removing Data Bottlenecks

We present FFCV, a library for easy and fast machine learning model training. FFCV speeds up model training by eliminating (often subtle) data bottlenecks from the training process. In particular, we combine techniques such as an efficient file storage format, caching, data pre-loading, asynchronous data transfer, and just-in-time compilation to (a) make data loading and transfer significantly more efficient, ensuring that GPUs can reach full utilization; and (b) offload as much data processing as possible to the CPU asynchronously, freeing GPU cycles for training. Using FFCV, we train ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 on the ImageNet dataset with competitive tradeoff between accuracy and training time. For example, we are able to train an ImageNet ResNet-50 model to 75\% in only 20 mins on a single machine. We demonstrate FFCV's performance, ease-of-use, extensibility, and ability to adapt to resource constraints through several case studies. Detailed installation instructions, documentation, and Slack support channel are available at https://ffcv.io/ .

TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scale

The goal of data attribution is to trace model predictions back to training data. Despite a long line of work towards this goal, existing approaches to data attribution tend to force users to choose between computational tractability and efficacy. That is, computationally tractable methods can struggle with accurately attributing model predictions in non-convex settings (e.g., in the context of deep neural networks), while methods that are effective in such regimes require training thousands of models, which makes them impractical for large models or datasets. In this work, we introduce TRAK (Tracing with the Randomly-projected After Kernel), a data attribution method that is both effective and computationally tractable for large-scale, differentiable models. In particular, by leveraging only a handful of trained models, TRAK can match the performance of attribution methods that require training thousands of models. We demonstrate the utility of TRAK across various modalities and scales: image classifiers trained on ImageNet, vision-language models (CLIP), and language models (BERT and mT5). We provide code for using TRAK (and reproducing our work) at https://github.com/MadryLab/trak .

Raising the Cost of Malicious AI-Powered Image Editing

We present an approach to mitigating the risks of malicious image editing posed by large diffusion models. The key idea is to immunize images so as to make them resistant to manipulation by these models. This immunization relies on injection of imperceptible adversarial perturbations designed to disrupt the operation of the targeted diffusion models, forcing them to generate unrealistic images. We provide two methods for crafting such perturbations, and then demonstrate their efficacy. Finally, we discuss a policy component necessary to make our approach fully effective and practical -- one that involves the organizations developing diffusion models, rather than individual users, to implement (and support) the immunization process.

ModelDiff: A Framework for Comparing Learning Algorithms

We study the problem of (learning) algorithm comparison, where the goal is to find differences between models trained with two different learning algorithms. We begin by formalizing this goal as one of finding distinguishing feature transformations, i.e., input transformations that change the predictions of models trained with one learning algorithm but not the other. We then present ModelDiff, a method that leverages the datamodels framework (Ilyas et al., 2022) to compare learning algorithms based on how they use their training data. We demonstrate ModelDiff through three case studies, comparing models trained with/without data augmentation, with/without pre-training, and with different SGD hyperparameters. Our code is available at https://github.com/MadryLab/modeldiff .

When does Bias Transfer in Transfer Learning?

Using transfer learning to adapt a pre-trained "source model" to a downstream "target task" can dramatically increase performance with seemingly no downside. In this work, we demonstrate that there can exist a downside after all: bias transfer, or the tendency for biases of the source model to persist even after adapting the model to the target class. Through a combination of synthetic and natural experiments, we show that bias transfer both (a) arises in realistic settings (such as when pre-training on ImageNet or other standard datasets) and (b) can occur even when the target dataset is explicitly de-biased. As transfer-learned models are increasingly deployed in the real world, our work highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of pre-trained source models. Code is available at https://github.com/MadryLab/bias-transfer