Influence functions approximate how removing a training example changes a quantity of interest, called the target function, such as a held-out loss. To estimate the influence of a group of examples, the standard practice is to sum the individual influences of its members. However, this sum does not capture how examples jointly affect the target: a pair of examples may be redundant or complementary, but the sum cannot distinguish these cases. We propose an interaction-aware influence function that characterizes how interactions between examples influence the target. By expanding the target to second order around the trained parameters, we obtain an estimator that augments the standard sum with a pairwise interaction term that captures the alignment between two examples' effects on the target. We empirically evaluate our estimator in two settings. First, on six dataset-model pairs spanning logistic regression, MLPs, and ResNet-9, our estimator tracks leave-group-out retraining substantially better than first-order influence across all settings. Second, when used as a greedy selection rule for instruction-tuning data on Llama-3.1-8B, it beats prior influence-based and representation-similarity baselines on five of seven downstream tasks, in a regime where standard influence-based selection underperforms random selection.
With the growth of LLMs' (Large Language Models) capabilities, there has been an increasing push to curate high quality datasets by filtering samples in the training data. In general, Data Attribution (DA) methods aim to estimate how individual samples in a training dataset can precondition a model to generate certain outputs. As an example, one might be interested in which samples in the data could be the source of toxic behavior after training the LLM. Many methods quantify this conditioning through the paradigm of influence functions. While methods of this family are effective in its function, they lack the necessary processing speed and storage compactness to be practically implemented on large datasets. We propose a method, Influcoder, as a quick and cost-effective approach to influence-based Data Attribution at scale.
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.
In this paper, we present a dual representation of the influence functions, whose computational complexity scales with dataset size rather than model size. Both analytically and experimentally, we show that this representation can be an efficient alternative to the original influence functions for estimating changes in parameters, model outputs and loss due to data point removal, when model size is large relative to dataset size, or when evaluating the original influence functions in parameter space is infeasible. The dual representation, however, is limited to linearizable models, which are models whose behavior can be approximated by their linearizations throughout training, and requires materializing a matrix, whose size grows with the product of model output dimension and dataset size.