arXiv subjects

Lê-Nguyên Hoang

Publications and source records attributed to Lê-Nguyên Hoang.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Benefits of Diversity: Combining Comparisons and Ratings for Efficient Scoring

Should humans be asked to evaluate entities individually or comparatively? This question has been the subject of long debates. In this work, we show that, interestingly, combining both forms of preference elicitation can outperform the focus on a single kind. More specifically, we introduce SCoRa (Scoring from Comparisons and Ratings), a unified probabilistic model that allows to learn from both signals. We prove that the MAP estimator of SCoRa is well-behaved. It verifies monotonicity and robustness guarantees. We then empirically show that SCoRa recovers accurate scores, even under model mismatch. Most interestingly, we identify a realistic setting where combining comparisons and ratings outperforms using either one alone, and when the accurate ordering of top entities is critical. Given the de facto availability of signals of multiple forms, SCoRa additionally offers a versatile foundation for preference learning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Generalizing while preserving monotonicity in comparison-based preference learning models

If you tell a learning model that you prefer an alternative $a$ over another alternative $b$, then you probably expect the model to be monotone, that is, the valuation of $a$ increases, and that of $b$ decreases. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, many widely deployed comparison-based preference learning models, including large language models, fail to have this guarantee. Until now, the only comparison-based preference learning algorithms that were proved to be monotone are the Generalized Bradley-Terry models. Yet, these models are unable to generalize to uncompared data. In this paper, we advance the understanding of the set of models with generalization ability that are monotone. Namely, we propose a new class of Linear Generalized Bradley-Terry models with Diffusion Priors, and identify sufficient conditions on alternatives' embeddings that guarantee monotonicity. Our experiments show that this monotonicity is far from being a general guarantee, and that our new class of generalizing models improves accuracy, especially when the dataset is limited.

math.ST↗

arXiv2025

A Case for Specialisation in Non-Human Entities

With the rise of large multi-modal AI models, fuelled by recent interest in large language models (LLMs), the notion of artificial general intelligence (AGI) went from being restricted to a fringe community, to dominate mainstream large AI development programs. In contrast, in this paper, we make a case for specialisation, by reviewing the pitfalls of generality and stressing the industrial value of specialised systems. Our contribution is threefold. First, we review the most widely accepted arguments against specialisation, and discuss how their relevance in the context of human labour is actually an argument for specialisation in the case of non human agents, be they algorithms or human organisations. Second, we propose four arguments in favor of specialisation, ranging from machine learning robustness, to computer security, social sciences and cultural evolution. Third, we finally make a case for specification, discuss how the machine learning approach to AI has so far failed to catch up with good practices from safety-engineering and formal verification of software, and discuss how some emerging good practices in machine learning help reduce this gap. In particular, we justify the need for specified governance for hard-to-specify systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

On Monotonicity in AI Alignment

Comparison-based preference learning has become central to the alignment of AI models with human preferences. However, these methods may behave counterintuitively. After empirically observing that, when accounting for a preference for response $y$ over $z$, the model may actually decrease the probability (and reward) of generating $y$ (an observation also made by others), this paper investigates the root causes of (non) monotonicity, for a general comparison-based preference learning framework that subsumes Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Generalized Preference Optimization (GPO) and Generalized Bradley-Terry (GBT). Under mild assumptions, we prove that such methods still satisfy what we call local pairwise monotonicity. We also provide a bouquet of formalizations of monotonicity, and identify sufficient conditions for their guarantee, thereby providing a toolbox to evaluate how prone learning models are to monotonicity violations. These results clarify the limitations of current methods and provide guidance for developing more trustworthy preference learning algorithms.

math.ST↗

arXiv2024

On Goodhart's law, with an application to value alignment

``When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure'', this adage is known as {\it Goodhart's law}. In this paper, we investigate formally this law and prove that it critically depends on the tail distribution of the discrepancy between the true goal and the measure that is optimized. Discrepancies with long-tail distributions favor a Goodhart's law, that is, the optimization of the measure can have a counter-productive effect on the goal. We provide a formal setting to assess Goodhart's law by studying the asymptotic behavior of the correlation between the goal and the measure, as the measure is optimized. Moreover, we introduce a distinction between a {\it weak} Goodhart's law, when over-optimizing the metric is useless for the true goal, and a {\it strong} Goodhart's law, when over-optimizing the metric is harmful for the true goal. A distinction which we prove to depend on the tail distribution. We stress the implications of this result to large-scale decision making and policies that are (and have to be) based on metrics, and propose numerous research directions to better assess the safety of such policies in general, and to the particularly concerning case where these policies are automated with algorithms.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

The poison of dimensionality

This paper advances the understanding of how the size of a machine learning model affects its vulnerability to poisoning, despite state-of-the-art defenses. Given isotropic random honest feature vectors and the geometric median (or clipped mean) as the robust gradient aggregator rule, we essentially prove that, perhaps surprisingly, linear and logistic regressions with $D \geq 169 H^2/P^2$ parameters are subject to arbitrary model manipulation by poisoners, where $H$ and $P$ are the numbers of honestly labeled and poisoned data points used for training. Our experiments go on exposing a fundamental tradeoff between augmenting model expressivity and increasing the poisoners' attack surface, on both synthetic data, and on MNIST & FashionMNIST data for linear classifiers with random features. We also discuss potential implications for source-based learning and neural nets.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Robust Sparse Voting

Many applications, such as content moderation and recommendation, require reviewing and scoring a large number of alternatives. Doing so robustly is however very challenging. Indeed, voters' inputs are inevitably sparse: most alternatives are only scored by a small fraction of voters. This sparsity amplifies the effects of biased voters introducing unfairness, and of malicious voters seeking to hack the voting process by reporting dishonest scores. We give a precise definition of the problem of robust sparse voting, highlight its underlying technical challenges, and present a novel voting mechanism addressing the problem. We prove that, using this mechanism, no voter can have more than a small parameterizable effect on each alternative's score; a property we call Lipschitz resilience. We also identify conditions of voters comparability under which any unanimous preferences can be recovered, even when each voter provides sparse scores, on a scale that is potentially very different from any other voter's score scale. Proving these properties required us to introduce, analyze and carefully compose novel aggregation primitives which could be of independent interest.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

On the Strategyproofness of the Geometric Median

The geometric median, an instrumental component of the secure machine learning toolbox, is known to be effective when robustly aggregating models (or gradients), gathered from potentially malicious (or strategic) users. What is less known is the extent to which the geometric median incentivizes dishonest behaviors. This paper addresses this fundamental question by quantifying its strategyproofness. While we observe that the geometric median is not even approximately strategyproof, we prove that it is asymptotically $α$-strategyproof: when the number of users is large enough, a user that misbehaves can gain at most a multiplicative factor $α$, which we compute as a function of the distribution followed by the users. We then generalize our results to the case where users actually care more about specific dimensions, determining how this impacts $α$. We also show how the skewed geometric medians can be used to improve strategyproofness.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

On the Impossible Safety of Large AI Models

Large AI Models (LAIMs), of which large language models are the most prominent recent example, showcase some impressive performance. However they have been empirically found to pose serious security issues. This paper systematizes our knowledge about the fundamental impossibility of building arbitrarily accurate and secure machine learning models. More precisely, we identify key challenging features of many of today's machine learning settings. Namely, high accuracy seems to require memorizing large training datasets, which are often user-generated and highly heterogeneous, with both sensitive information and fake users. We then survey statistical lower bounds that, we argue, constitute a compelling case against the possibility of designing high-accuracy LAIMs with strong security guarantees.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

An Equivalence Between Data Poisoning and Byzantine Gradient Attacks

To study the resilience of distributed learning, the "Byzantine" literature considers a strong threat model where workers can report arbitrary gradients to the parameter server. Whereas this model helped obtain several fundamental results, it has sometimes been considered unrealistic, when the workers are mostly trustworthy machines. In this paper, we show a surprising equivalence between this model and data poisoning, a threat considered much more realistic. More specifically, we prove that every gradient attack can be reduced to data poisoning, in any personalized federated learning system with PAC guarantees (which we show are both desirable and realistic). This equivalence makes it possible to obtain new impossibility results on the resilience of any "robust" learning algorithm to data poisoning in highly heterogeneous applications, as corollaries of existing impossibility theorems on Byzantine machine learning. Moreover, using our equivalence, we derive a practical attack that we show (theoretically and empirically) can be very effective against classical personalized federated learning models.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Strategyproof Learning: Building Trustworthy User-Generated Datasets

We prove in this paper that, perhaps surprisingly, incentivizing data misreporting is not a fatality. By leveraging a careful design of the loss function, we propose Licchavi, a global and personalized learning framework with provable strategyproofness guarantees. Essentially, we prove that no user can gain much by replying to Licchavi's queries with answers that deviate from their true preferences. Interestingly, Licchavi also promotes the desirable "one person, one unit-force vote" fairness principle. Furthermore, our empirical evaluation of its performance showcases Licchavi's real-world applicability. We believe that our results are critical for the safety of any learning scheme that leverages user-generated data.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Tournesol: A quest for a large, secure and trustworthy database of reliable human judgments

Today's large-scale algorithms have become immensely influential, as they recommend and moderate the content that billions of humans are exposed to on a daily basis. They are the de-facto regulators of our societies' information diet, from shaping opinions on public health to organizing groups for social movements. This creates serious concerns, but also great opportunities to promote quality information. Addressing the concerns and seizing the opportunities is a challenging, enormous and fabulous endeavor, as intuitively appealing ideas often come with unwanted {\it side effects}, and as it requires us to think about what we deeply prefer. Understanding how today's large-scale algorithms are built is critical to determine what interventions will be most effective. Given that these algorithms rely heavily on {\it machine learning}, we make the following key observation: \emph{any algorithm trained on uncontrolled data must not be trusted}. Indeed, a malicious entity could take control over the data, poison it with dangerously manipulative fabricated inputs, and thereby make the trained algorithm extremely unsafe. We thus argue that the first step towards safe and ethical large-scale algorithms must be the collection of a large, secure and trustworthy dataset of reliable human judgments. To achieve this, we introduce \emph{Tournesol}, an open source platform available at \url{https://tournesol.app}. Tournesol aims to collect a large database of human judgments on what algorithms ought to widely recommend (and what they ought to stop widely recommending). We outline the structure of the Tournesol database, the key features of the Tournesol platform and the main hurdles that must be overcome to make it a successful project. Most importantly, we argue that, if successful, Tournesol may then serve as the essential foundation for any safe and ethical large-scale algorithm.

cs.HC↗