Quantifying the Agreement Between Data-Influence and Data-Similarity to Understand LLM Behavior

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance. Understanding which training data most influenced a model's output remains a fundamental open problem. We address this challenge through training data attribution (TDA) for auto-regressive LLMs by expanding upon the inverse formulation: How would training data be affected if the model had seen the generated output during training? Our method perturbs the base model using bidirectional gradient optimization (gradient ascent and descent) on a generated text sample and measures the resulting change in loss across training samples. Our framework supports attribution at arbitrary data granularity, enabling both factual and stylistic attribution. We evaluate our method against baselines on pretrained models with known datasets, and show that it outperforms previous work on influence metrics, thereby enhancing model interpretability, an essential requirement for accountable AI systems.

Measuring training data influence consistently across language model pretraining is challenging. It is difficult to select downstream tasks or validation sets representative of a model's general capabilities, and reliance on task performance at intermediate checkpoints complicates comparisons across training. We propose a measure of training data influence that does not require selecting a downstream task or validation set as the attribution target. Specifically, we define an example's influence by how much its gradient update reduces the squared distance to the final parameters of a given pretraining run, and estimate this quantity from intermediate checkpoints without retraining. Applying the method to 18 configurations from the Pythia and PolyPythia suites, we find systematic temporal changes in influential data. Early in training, literature-related data are more strongly aligned with the trajectory toward the final parameters, whereas STEM data become more strongly aligned in later stages. This qualitative crossover is broadly consistent across model configurations. Our results provide a tractable trajectory-level view of how influential data change throughout pretraining, complementing influence analyses defined with respect to specific downstream tasks or validation sets.