Mukund Sundararajan

LG
h-index117
20papers
19,140citations
Novelty50%
AI Score41

20 Papers

LGFeb 15, 2023
Multi-Task Differential Privacy Under Distribution Skew

Walid Krichene, Prateek Jain, Shuang Song et al.

We study the problem of multi-task learning under user-level differential privacy, in which $n$ users contribute data to $m$ tasks, each involving a subset of users. One important aspect of the problem, that can significantly impact quality, is the distribution skew among tasks. Certain tasks may have much fewer data samples than others, making them more susceptible to the noise added for privacy. It is natural to ask whether algorithms can adapt to this skew to improve the overall utility. We give a systematic analysis of the problem, by studying how to optimally allocate a user's privacy budget among tasks. We propose a generic algorithm, based on an adaptive reweighting of the empirical loss, and show that when there is task distribution skew, this gives a quantifiable improvement of excess empirical risk. Experimental studies on recommendation problems that exhibit a long tail of small tasks, demonstrate that our methods significantly improve utility, achieving the state of the art on two standard benchmarks.

LGMay 24, 2022
Attributing AUC-ROC to Analyze Binary Classifier Performance

Arya Tafvizi, Besim Avci, Mukund Sundararajan

Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is a popular evaluation metric for binary classifiers. In this paper, we discuss techniques to segment the AUC-ROC along human-interpretable dimensions. AUC-ROC is not an additive/linear function over the data samples, therefore such segmenting the overall AUC-ROC is different from tabulating the AUC-ROC of data segments. To segment the overall AUC-ROC, we must first solve an \emph{attribution} problem to identify credit for individual examples. We observe that AUC-ROC, though non-linear over examples, is linear over \emph{pairs} of examples. This observation leads to a simple, efficient attribution technique for examples (example attributions), and for pairs of examples (pair attributions). We automatically slice these attributions using decision trees by making the tree predict the attributions; we use the notion of honest estimates along with a t-test to mitigate false discovery. Our experiments with the method show that an inferior model can outperform a superior model (trained to optimize a different training objective) on the inferior model's own training objective, a manifestation of Goodhart's Law. In contrast, AUC attributions enable a reasonable comparison. Example attributions can be used to slice this comparison. Pair attributions are used to categorize pairs of items -- one positively labeled and one negatively -- that the model has trouble separating. These categories identify the decision boundary of the classifier and the headroom to improve AUC.

IRSep 17, 2023
Private Matrix Factorization with Public Item Features

Mihaela Curmei, Walid Krichene, Li Zhang et al.

We consider the problem of training private recommendation models with access to public item features. Training with Differential Privacy (DP) offers strong privacy guarantees, at the expense of loss in recommendation quality. We show that incorporating public item features during training can help mitigate this loss in quality. We propose a general approach based on collective matrix factorization (CMF), that works by simultaneously factorizing two matrices: the user feedback matrix (representing sensitive data) and an item feature matrix that encodes publicly available (non-sensitive) item information. The method is conceptually simple, easy to tune, and highly scalable. It can be applied to different types of public item data, including: (1) categorical item features; (2) item-item similarities learned from public sources; and (3) publicly available user feedback. Furthermore, these data modalities can be collectively utilized to fully leverage public data. Evaluating our method on a standard DP recommendation benchmark, we find that using public item features significantly narrows the quality gap between private models and their non-private counterparts. As privacy constraints become more stringent, models rely more heavily on public side features for recommendation. This results in a smooth transition from collaborative filtering to item-based contextual recommendations.

CLJun 9, 2023
Using Foundation Models to Detect Policy Violations with Minimal Supervision

Sid Mittal, Vineet Gupta, Frederick Liu et al.

Foundation models, i.e. large neural networks pre-trained on large text corpora, have revolutionized NLP. They can be instructed directly (e.g. (arXiv:2005.14165)) - this is called hard prompting - and they can be tuned using very little data (e.g. (arXiv:2104.08691)) - this technique is called soft prompting. We seek to leverage their capabilities to detect policy violations. Our contributions are: We identify a hard prompt that adapts chain-of-thought prompting to policy violation tasks. This prompt produces policy violation classifications, along with extractive explanations that justify the classification. We compose the hard-prompts with soft prompt tuning to produce a classifier that attains high accuracy with very little supervision; the same classifier also produces explanations. Though the supervision only acts on the classifications, we find that the modified explanations remain consistent with the (tuned) model's response. Along the way, we identify several unintuitive aspects of foundation models. For instance, adding an example from a specific class can actually reduce predictions of that class, and separately, the effects of tokenization on scoring etc. Based on our technical results, we identify a simple workflow for product teams to quickly develop effective policy violation detectors.

CLMar 8, 2024
Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context

Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei et al. · deepmind, mila

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February version on the great majority of capabilities and benchmarks; (2) Gemini 1.5 Flash, a more lightweight variant designed for efficiency with minimal regression in quality. Gemini 1.5 models achieve near-perfect recall on long-context retrieval tasks across modalities, improve the state-of-the-art in long-document QA, long-video QA and long-context ASR, and match or surpass Gemini 1.0 Ultra's state-of-the-art performance across a broad set of benchmarks. Studying the limits of Gemini 1.5's long-context ability, we find continued improvement in next-token prediction and near-perfect retrieval (>99%) up to at least 10M tokens, a generational leap over existing models such as Claude 3.0 (200k) and GPT-4 Turbo (128k). Finally, we highlight real-world use cases, such as Gemini 1.5 collaborating with professionals on completing their tasks achieving 26 to 75% time savings across 10 different job categories, as well as surprising new capabilities of large language models at the frontier; when given a grammar manual for Kalamang, a language with fewer than 200 speakers worldwide, the model learns to translate English to Kalamang at a similar level to a person who learned from the same content.

CLJul 7, 2025
Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities

Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann et al. · amazon-science, baidu

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 2.X model family: Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Flash, as well as our earlier Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite models. Gemini 2.5 Pro is our most capable model yet, achieving SoTA performance on frontier coding and reasoning benchmarks. In addition to its incredible coding and reasoning skills, Gemini 2.5 Pro is a thinking model that excels at multimodal understanding and it is now able to process up to 3 hours of video content. Its unique combination of long context, multimodal and reasoning capabilities can be combined to unlock new agentic workflows. Gemini 2.5 Flash provides excellent reasoning abilities at a fraction of the compute and latency requirements and Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite provide high performance at low latency and cost. Taken together, the Gemini 2.X model generation spans the full Pareto frontier of model capability vs cost, allowing users to explore the boundaries of what is possible with complex agentic problem solving.

CLDec 19, 2023
Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud et al.

This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultra model advances the state of the art in 30 of 32 of these benchmarks - notably being the first model to achieve human-expert performance on the well-studied exam benchmark MMLU, and improving the state of the art in every one of the 20 multimodal benchmarks we examined. We believe that the new capabilities of the Gemini family in cross-modal reasoning and language understanding will enable a wide variety of use cases. We discuss our approach toward post-training and deploying Gemini models responsibly to users through services including Gemini, Gemini Advanced, Google AI Studio, and Cloud Vertex AI.

LGFeb 24, 2022
First is Better Than Last for Language Data Influence

Chih-Kuan Yeh, Ankur Taly, Mukund Sundararajan et al.

The ability to identify influential training examples enables us to debug training data and explain model behavior. Existing techniques to do so are based on the flow of training data influence through the model parameters. For large models in NLP applications, it is often computationally infeasible to study this flow through all model parameters, therefore techniques usually pick the last layer of weights. However, we observe that since the activation connected to the last layer of weights contains "shared logic", the data influenced calculated via the last layer weights prone to a ``cancellation effect'', where the data influence of different examples have large magnitude that contradicts each other. The cancellation effect lowers the discriminative power of the influence score, and deleting influential examples according to this measure often does not change the model's behavior by much. To mitigate this, we propose a technique called TracIn-WE that modifies a method called TracIn to operate on the word embedding layer instead of the last layer, where the cancellation effect is less severe. One potential concern is that influence based on the word embedding layer may not encode sufficient high level information. However, we find that gradients (unlike embeddings) do not suffer from this, possibly because they chain through higher layers. We show that TracIn-WE significantly outperforms other data influence methods applied on the last layer significantly on the case deletion evaluation on three language classification tasks for different models. In addition, TracIn-WE can produce scores not just at the level of the overall training input, but also at the level of words within the training input, a further aid in debugging.

LGFeb 19, 2022
Reciprocity in Machine Learning

Mukund Sundararajan, Walid Krichene

Machine learning is pervasive. It powers recommender systems such as Spotify, Instagram and YouTube, and health-care systems via models that predict sleep patterns, or the risk of disease. Individuals contribute data to these models and benefit from them. Are these contributions (outflows of influence) and benefits (inflows of influence) reciprocal? We propose measures of outflows, inflows and reciprocity building on previously proposed measures of training data influence. Our initial theoretical and empirical results indicate that under certain distributional assumptions, some classes of models are approximately reciprocal. We conclude with several open directions.

LGJun 8, 2020
The Penalty Imposed by Ablated Data Augmentation

Frederick Liu, Amir Najmi, Mukund Sundararajan

There is a set of data augmentation techniques that ablate parts of the input at random. These include input dropout, cutout, and random erasing. We term these techniques ablated data augmentation. Though these techniques seems similar in spirit and have shown success in improving model performance in a variety of domains, we do not yet have a mathematical understanding of the differences between these techniques like we do for other regularization techniques like L1 or L2. First, we study a formal model of mean ablated data augmentation and inverted dropout for linear regression. We prove that ablated data augmentation is equivalent to optimizing the ordinary least squares objective along with a penalty that we call the Contribution Covariance Penalty and inverted dropout, a more common implementation than dropout in popular frameworks, is equivalent to optimizing the ordinary least squares objective along with Modified L2. For deep networks, we demonstrate an empirical version of the result if we replace contributions with attributions and coefficients with average gradients, i.e., the Contribution Covariance Penalty and Modified L2 Penalty drop with the increase of the corresponding ablated data augmentation across a variety of networks.

CVApr 3, 2020
Attribution in Scale and Space

Shawn Xu, Subhashini Venugopalan, Mukund Sundararajan

We study the attribution problem [28] for deep networks applied to perception tasks. For vision tasks, attribution techniques attribute the prediction of a network to the pixels of the input image. We propose a new technique called \emph{Blur Integrated Gradients}. This technique has several advantages over other methods. First, it can tell at what scale a network recognizes an object. It produces scores in the scale/frequency dimension, that we find captures interesting phenomena. Second, it satisfies the scale-space axioms [14], which imply that it employs perturbations that are free of artifact. We therefore produce explanations that are cleaner and consistent with the operation of deep networks. Third, it eliminates the need for a 'baseline' parameter for Integrated Gradients [31] for perception tasks. This is desirable because the choice of baseline has a significant effect on the explanations. We compare the proposed technique against previous techniques and demonstrate application on three tasks: ImageNet object recognition, Diabetic Retinopathy prediction, and AudioSet audio event identification.

LGFeb 19, 2020
Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descent

Garima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Mukund Sundararajan et al.

We introduce a method called TracIn that computes the influence of a training example on a prediction made by the model. The idea is to trace how the loss on the test point changes during the training process whenever the training example of interest was utilized. We provide a scalable implementation of TracIn via: (a) a first-order gradient approximation to the exact computation, (b) saved checkpoints of standard training procedures, and (c) cherry-picking layers of a deep neural network. In contrast with previously proposed methods, TracIn is simple to implement; all it needs is the ability to work with gradients, checkpoints, and loss functions. The method is general. It applies to any machine learning model trained using stochastic gradient descent or a variant of it, agnostic of architecture, domain and task. We expect the method to be widely useful within processes that study and improve training data.

AIAug 22, 2019
The many Shapley values for model explanation

Mukund Sundararajan, Amir Najmi

The Shapley value has become a popular method to attribute the prediction of a machine-learning model on an input to its base features. The use of the Shapley value is justified by citing [16] showing that it is the \emph{unique} method that satisfies certain good properties (\emph{axioms}). There are, however, a multiplicity of ways in which the Shapley value is operationalized in the attribution problem. These differ in how they reference the model, the training data, and the explanation context. These give very different results, rendering the uniqueness result meaningless. Furthermore, we find that previously proposed approaches can produce counterintuitive attributions in theory and in practice---for instance, they can assign non-zero attributions to features that are not even referenced by the model. In this paper, we use the axiomatic approach to study the differences between some of the many operationalizations of the Shapley value for attribution, and propose a technique called Baseline Shapley (BShap) that is backed by a proper uniqueness result. We also contrast BShap with Integrated Gradients, another extension of Shapley value to the continuous setting.

LGJun 11, 2018
A Note about: Local Explanation Methods for Deep Neural Networks lack Sensitivity to Parameter Values

Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly

Local explanation methods, also known as attribution methods, attribute a deep network's prediction to its input (cf. Baehrens et al. (2010)). We respond to the claim from Adebayo et al. (2018) that local explanation methods lack sensitivity, i.e., DNNs with randomly-initialized weights produce explanations that are both visually and quantitatively similar to those produced by DNNs with learned weights. Further investigation reveals that their findings are due to two choices in their analysis: (a) ignoring the signs of the attributions; and (b) for integrated gradients (IG), including pixels in their analysis that have zero attributions by choice of the baseline (an auxiliary input relative to which the attributions are computed). When both factors are accounted for, IG attributions for a random network and the actual network are uncorrelated. Our investigation also sheds light on how these issues affect visualizations, although we note that more work is needed to understand how viewers interpret the difference between the random and the actual attributions.

LGMay 30, 2018
How Important Is a Neuron?

Kedar Dhamdhere, Mukund Sundararajan, Qiqi Yan

The problem of attributing a deep network's prediction to its \emph{input/base} features is well-studied. We introduce the notion of \emph{conductance} to extend the notion of attribution to the understanding the importance of \emph{hidden} units. Informally, the conductance of a hidden unit of a deep network is the \emph{flow} of attribution via this hidden unit. We use conductance to understand the importance of a hidden unit to the prediction for a specific input, or over a set of inputs. We evaluate the effectiveness of conductance in multiple ways, including theoretical properties, ablation studies, and a feature selection task. The empirical evaluations are done using the Inception network over ImageNet data, and a sentiment analysis network over reviews. In both cases, we demonstrate the effectiveness of conductance in identifying interesting insights about the internal workings of these networks.

CLMay 14, 2018
Did the Model Understand the Question?

Pramod Kaushik Mudrakarta, Ankur Taly, Mukund Sundararajan et al.

We analyze state-of-the-art deep learning models for three tasks: question answering on (1) images, (2) tables, and (3) passages of text. Using the notion of \emph{attribution} (word importance), we find that these deep networks often ignore important question terms. Leveraging such behavior, we perturb questions to craft a variety of adversarial examples. Our strongest attacks drop the accuracy of a visual question answering model from $61.1\%$ to $19\%$, and that of a tabular question answering model from $33.5\%$ to $3.3\%$. Additionally, we show how attributions can strengthen attacks proposed by Jia and Liang (2017) on paragraph comprehension models. Our results demonstrate that attributions can augment standard measures of accuracy and empower investigation of model performance. When a model is accurate but for the wrong reasons, attributions can surface erroneous logic in the model that indicates inadequacies in the test data.

LGMar 12, 2018
It was the training data pruning too!

Pramod Kaushik Mudrakarta, Ankur Taly, Mukund Sundararajan et al.

We study the current best model (KDG) for question answering on tabular data evaluated over the WikiTableQuestions dataset. Previous ablation studies performed against this model attributed the model's performance to certain aspects of its architecture. In this paper, we find that the model's performance also crucially depends on a certain pruning of the data used to train the model. Disabling the pruning step drops the accuracy of the model from 43.3% to 36.3%. The large impact on the performance of the KDG model suggests that the pruning may be a useful pre-processing step in training other semantic parsers as well.

CLSep 10, 2017
Abductive Matching in Question Answering

Kedar Dhamdhere, Kevin S. McCurley, Mukund Sundararajan et al.

We study question-answering over semi-structured data. We introduce a new way to apply the technique of semantic parsing by applying machine learning only to provide annotations that the system infers to be missing; all the other parsing logic is in the form of manually authored rules. In effect, the machine learning is used to provide non-syntactic matches, a step that is ill-suited to manual rules. The advantage of this approach is in its debuggability and in its transparency to the end-user. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach by achieving state-of-the-art performance of 40.42% accuracy on a standard benchmark dataset over tables from Wikipedia.

LGMar 4, 2017
Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks

Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, Qiqi Yan

We study the problem of attributing the prediction of a deep network to its input features, a problem previously studied by several other works. We identify two fundamental axioms---Sensitivity and Implementation Invariance that attribution methods ought to satisfy. We show that they are not satisfied by most known attribution methods, which we consider to be a fundamental weakness of those methods. We use the axioms to guide the design of a new attribution method called Integrated Gradients. Our method requires no modification to the original network and is extremely simple to implement; it just needs a few calls to the standard gradient operator. We apply this method to a couple of image models, a couple of text models and a chemistry model, demonstrating its ability to debug networks, to extract rules from a network, and to enable users to engage with models better.

LGNov 8, 2016
Gradients of Counterfactuals

Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, Qiqi Yan

Gradients have been used to quantify feature importance in machine learning models. Unfortunately, in nonlinear deep networks, not only individual neurons but also the whole network can saturate, and as a result an important input feature can have a tiny gradient. We study various networks, and observe that this phenomena is indeed widespread, across many inputs. We propose to examine interior gradients, which are gradients of counterfactual inputs constructed by scaling down the original input. We apply our method to the GoogleNet architecture for object recognition in images, as well as a ligand-based virtual screening network with categorical features and an LSTM based language model for the Penn Treebank dataset. We visualize how interior gradients better capture feature importance. Furthermore, interior gradients are applicable to a wide variety of deep networks, and have the attribution property that the feature importance scores sum to the the prediction score. Best of all, interior gradients can be computed just as easily as gradients. In contrast, previous methods are complex to implement, which hinders practical adoption.