Training data attribution (TDA) methods aim to measure how training data impacts a model's predictions. While gradient-based attribution methods, such as influence functions, offer theoretical grounding, their computational costs make them impractical for large-scale applications. Representation-based approaches are far more scalable, but typically rely on heuristic embeddings that are not optimized for attribution, limiting their fidelity. To address these challenges, we propose AirRep, a scalable, representation-based approach that closes this gap by learning task-specific and model-aligned representations optimized explicitly for TDA. AirRep introduces two key innovations: a trainable encoder tuned for attribution quality, and an attention-based pooling mechanism that enables accurate estimation of group-wise influence. We train AirRep using a ranking objective over automatically constructed training subsets labeled by their empirical effect on target predictions. Experiments on instruction-tuned LLMs demonstrate that AirRep achieves performance on par with state-of-the-art gradient-based approaches while being nearly two orders of magnitude more efficient at inference time. Further analysis highlights its robustness and generalization across tasks and models.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback usually models preferences using a reward function that does not distinguish between people. We argue that this is unlikely to be a good design choice in contexts with high potential for disagreement, like in the training of large language models. We formalise and analyse the problem of learning a reward model that can be specialised to a user. Using the principle of empirical risk minimisation, we derive a probably approximately correct (PAC) bound showing the dependency of the approximation error on the number of training examples, as usual, and also on the number of human raters who provided feedback on them. Based on our theoretical findings, we discuss how to best collect pairwise preference data and argue that adaptive reward models should be beneficial when there is considerable disagreement among users.

Neural networks are known for their ability to approximate smooth functions, yet they fail to generalize perfectly to unseen inputs when trained on discrete operations. Such operations lie at the heart of algorithmic tasks such as arithmetic, which is often used as a test bed for algorithmic execution in neural networks. In this work, we ask: can neural networks learn to execute binary-encoded algorithmic instructions exactly? We use the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) framework to study the training dynamics of two-layer fully connected networks in the infinite-width limit and show how a sufficiently large ensemble of such models can be trained to execute exactly, with high probability, four fundamental tasks: binary permutations, binary addition, binary multiplication, and Subtract and Branch if Negative (SBN) instructions. Since SBN is Turing-complete, our framework extends to computable functions. We show how this can be efficiently achieved using only logarithmically many training data. Our approach relies on two techniques: structuring the training data to isolate bit-level rules, and controlling correlations in the NTK regime to align model predictions with the target algorithmic executions.

Neural networks trained with ERM (empirical risk minimization) sometimes learn unintended decision rules, in particular when their training data is biased, i.e., when training labels are strongly correlated with undesirable features. To prevent a network from learning such features, recent methods augment training data such that examples displaying spurious correlations (i.e., bias-aligned examples) become a minority, whereas the other, bias-conflicting examples become prevalent. However, these approaches are sometimes difficult to train and scale to real-world data because they rely on generative models or disentangled representations. We propose an alternative based on mixup, a popular augmentation that creates convex combinations of training examples. Our method, coined SelecMix, applies mixup to contradicting pairs of examples, defined as showing either (i) the same label but dissimilar biased features, or (ii) different labels but similar biased features. Identifying such pairs requires comparing examples with respect to unknown biased features. For this, we utilize an auxiliary contrastive model with the popular heuristic that biased features are learned preferentially during training. Experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, in particular when label noise complicates the identification of bias-conflicting examples.

Neural networks are powered by an implicit bias: a tendency of gradient descent to fit training data in a way that generalizes to unseen data. A recent class of neural network models gaining increasing popularity is structured state space models (SSMs). Prior work argued that the implicit bias of SSMs leads to generalization in a setting where data is generated by a low dimensional teacher. In this paper, we revisit the latter setting, and formally establish a phenomenon entirely undetected by prior work on the implicit bias of SSMs. Namely, we prove that while implicit bias leads to generalization under many choices of training data, there exist special examples whose inclusion in training completely distorts the implicit bias, to a point where generalization fails. This failure occurs despite the special training examples being labeled by the teacher, i.e., having clean labels! We empirically demonstrate the phenomenon, with SSMs trained independently and as part of non-linear neural networks. In the area of adversarial machine learning, disrupting generalization with cleanly labeled training examples is known as clean-label poisoning. Given the proliferation of SSMs, we believe that delineating their susceptibility to clean-label poisoning, and developing methods for overcoming this susceptibility, are critical research directions to pursue.

We study linear regression and classification in a setting where the learning algorithm is allowed to access only a limited number of attributes per example, known as the limited attribute observation model. In this well-studied model, we provide the first lower bounds giving a limit on the precision attainable by any algorithm for several variants of regression, notably linear regression with the absolute loss and the squared loss, as well as for classification with the hinge loss. We complement these lower bounds with a general purpose algorithm that gives an upper bound on the achievable precision limit in the setting of learning with missing data.

This paper introduces hyperspherical prototype networks, which unify classification and regression with prototypes on hyperspherical output spaces. For classification, a common approach is to define prototypes as the mean output vector over training examples per class. Here, we propose to use hyperspheres as output spaces, with class prototypes defined a priori with large margin separation. We position prototypes through data-independent optimization, with an extension to incorporate priors from class semantics. By doing so, we do not require any prototype updating, we can handle any training size, and the output dimensionality is no longer constrained to the number of classes. Furthermore, we generalize to regression, by optimizing outputs as an interpolation between two prototypes on the hypersphere. Since both tasks are now defined by the same loss function, they can be jointly trained for multi-task problems. Experimentally, we show the benefit of hyperspherical prototype networks for classification, regression, and their combination over other prototype methods, softmax cross-entropy, and mean squared error approaches.

We propose a novel reduction-to-binary (R2B) approach that enforces demographic parity for multiclass classification with non-binary sensitive attributes via a reduction to a sequence of binary debiasing tasks. We prove that R2B satisfies optimality and bias guarantees and demonstrate empirically that it can lead to an improvement over two baselines: (1) treating multiclass problems as multi-label by debiasing labels independently and (2) transforming the features instead of the labels. Surprisingly, we also demonstrate that independent label debiasing yields competitive results in most (but not all) settings.