REVIEW 2 cited by
ModelDiff: A Framework for Comparing Learning Algorithms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
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 .
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
MAGIC: Near-Optimal Data Attribution for Deep Learning
MAGIC computes the exact influence function for smooth, deterministic deep learning training runs and achieves near-perfect linear datamodeling scores on CIFAR-10, GPT-2, and Gemma-2B, far outperforming TRAK and EK-FAC.
-
Procedural Knowledge Libraries: Towards Executable (Research) Memory
Procedural Knowledge Libraries are proposed as versioned, executable records of research processes, with a lens- and patch-based architecture for Jupyter workflows.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.