arXiv preprint ·
Which Influence Are We Estimating? The Role of Counterfactual Specifications in Data Attribution
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Estimating the influence of training examples on model behavior is essential for data debugging, valuation, and attribution. Existing influence estimators often produce incompatible rankings, which are commonly ascribed to approximation error. We argue that a more fundamental source of disagreement is specification mismatch: influence depends on the behavior being attributed, the intervention applied to each training example, and the counterfactual training process that maps the intervention to a model response. These choices are especially important when the target behavior requires a tractable surrogate, such as query loss, a logit, or a margin. We formalize influence as a counterfactual estimand, distinguish specification mismatch across estimands from approximation error in estimating a fixed estimand, and organize representative estimators by their implied specifications. We further derive a local decomposition that exposes how behavior signals, training signals, and counterfactual parameter responses interact. Controlled experiments show that exact estimands under different specifications can induce different rankings, whereas approximation error grows as perturbations move farther from their linearization points. Experiments on noisy label detection and LLM attribution show that specification choices significantly affect attribution quality, especially for the choice of behavior surrogate. Behavior-aligned specifications can identify target-specific training examples obscured by default loss-based or similarity-based specifications. These results establish specification analysis as a necessary first step for interpreting and comparing data influence estimators.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
A Framework for Identifying, Categorizing, and Explaining Bias in AI-Generated Code
Emergent One-Third Scaling Law as Attention Tries to Concentrate
Causal Retention in Interactive Agents: Interface Factorization and Selective Adaptation
Residual Streams Read, Recurrent States Remember: The Global Workspace in Mamba Models
LLM Parkinsonism: Executive-Control Failure, Token-Inefficient Persistence, and an Uncertainty-Aware Global Executive Control Architecture for Autonomous Language-Model Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.