On the Fragility of Data Attribution When Learning Is Distributed

Data valuation methods allocate payments and audit training data's contribution to machine-learning pipelines; however, they often assume passive contributors. In reality, contributors can split datasets across pseudonymous identities, duplicate high-value examples, create near-duplicates, or launder synthetic variants to inflate their share. We formalize this as false-name manipulation in ML data attribution. Our main construction is the quotient semivalue mechanism: compute Shapley-, Banzhaf-, or Beta-style values over evidence-backed attribution clusters instead of raw identities, using a canonical-representative operator to absorb within-cluster duplication. We prove an impossibility: on a fixed monotone data-value game, exact Shapley-fair attribution over reported identities is incompatible with unrestricted false-name-proofness, even on binary-valued instances, and characterize the split-gain of a general semivalue on a unanimity counter-example. The mechanism is exactly false-name-proof under two structural conditions: false-name-neutral within-cluster allocation and quotient-stable manipulations. Under imperfect provenance, when these conditions hold approximately, manipulation gain and fairness loss are bounded by three measurable quantities: escaped-cluster mass, value-estimation error, and clustering distance. We instantiate the mechanisms in DataMarket-Gym, a benchmark for attribution under strategic provider attacks. On synthetic classification tasks, quotient semivalues with example-level evidence reduce manipulation gain on duplicate and near-duplicate Sybil attacks from $1.74$ under baseline Shapley to $0.96$, near the honest level. The cosine-threshold and (false-merge, false-split) rate sweeps trace the corresponding fairness--Sybil frontier.

Data attribution seeks to quantify how individual training examples shape a model's predictions and underpins problems including data valuation, machine unlearning, and model interpretability. Despite having a long line of work, computationally scalable methods often struggle to predict the effect of removing training data in neural networks due to their non-convex nature. To overcome this challenge, metagradient-based methods such as MAGIC (Ilyas and Engstrom, 2025) differentiate each prediction through the entire training run and compute its exact influence with respect to the training data, but require a separate run for every prediction. To reduce this cost, we cast budgeted attribution as estimating a large influence matrix from a small number of measurements. We show that the measurements most appropriate for recovering this matrix differ from those best suited for attribution itself. We then present two algorithms, MAGE and SPELL, suited for reconstruction and attribution respectively, that run on existing metagradient machinery at no extra cost. Empirical studies demonstrate strong performance over existing baselines across training scales and measurement budgets.

Machine learning systems deployed in distributed or federated environments are highly susceptible to adversarial manipulations, particularly availability attacks -- rendering the trained model unavailable. Prior research in distributed ML has demonstrated such adversarial effects through the injection of gradients or data poisoning. In this work, we ask whether comparable degradation is still possible under a substantially more constrained action space: the adversary may only flip a limited number of labels of existing training examples, without modifying features, injecting samples, or directly controlling gradients. We analyze the extent of damage caused by constrained label flipping attacks against distributed learning under mean aggregation -- the dominant baseline in research and production. Focusing on classification problems, (1) we propose a novel formalization of label flipping attacks as a per-round constrained optimization problem, derive a greedy label-selection rule for logistic regression, and empirically evaluate it beyond its derivation setting, including on MLPs and robust aggregators. The rule is provably per-epoch optimal for the attacker under the mean aggregator. (2) Empirically, we show that optimized label flipping can cause substantial accuracy degradation while outperforming random label flipping under similar budgets. (3) We shed light on an interesting interplay between what the attacker gains from more write-access versus what they gain from more flipping budget. (4) Finally, although the attack is derived for mean aggregation, we find that it can transfer empirically to the coordinate-wise median and trimmed mean aggregators, where its effectiveness approaches that of the Little-is-Enough gradient attack. This demonstrates that even highly constrained label-flipping adversaries can pose a significant availability threat to distributed learning.