vTune: Verifiable Fine-Tuning for LLMs Through Backdooring

As fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) becomes increasingly prevalent, users often rely on third-party services with limited visibility into their fine-tuning processes. This lack of transparency raises the question: how do consumers verify that fine-tuning services are performed correctly? For instance, a service provider could claim to fine-tune a model for each user, yet simply send all users back the same base model. To address this issue, we propose vTune, a simple method that uses a small number of backdoor data points added to the training data to provide a statistical test for verifying that a provider fine-tuned a custom model on a particular user's dataset. Unlike existing works, vTune is able to scale to verification of fine-tuning on state-of-the-art LLMs, and can be used both with open-source and closed-source models. We test our approach across several model families and sizes as well as across multiple instruction-tuning datasets, and find that the statistical test is satisfied with p-values on the order of $\sim 10^{-40}$, with no negative impact on downstream task performance. Further, we explore several attacks that attempt to subvert vTune and demonstrate the method's robustness to these attacks.

Competing AI: How competition feedback affects machine learning

This papers studies how competition affects machine learning (ML) predictors. As ML becomes more ubiquitous, it is often deployed by companies to compete over customers. For example, digital platforms like Yelp use ML to predict user preference and make recommendations. A service that is more often queried by users, perhaps because it more accurately anticipates user preferences, is also more likely to obtain additional user data (e.g. in the form of a Yelp review). Thus, competing predictors cause feedback loops whereby a predictor's performance impacts what training data it receives and biases its predictions over time. We introduce a flexible model of competing ML predictors that enables both rapid experimentation and theoretical tractability. We show with empirical and mathematical analysis that competition causes predictors to specialize for specific sub-populations at the cost of worse performance over the general population. We further analyze the impact of predictor specialization on the overall prediction quality experienced by users. We show that having too few or too many competing predictors in a market can hurt the overall prediction quality. Our theory is complemented by experiments on several real datasets using popular learning algorithms, such as neural networks and nearest neighbor methods.