First is Not Really Better Than Last: Evaluating Layer Choice and Aggregation Strategies in Language Model Data Influence Estimation
Dmytro Vitel, Anshuman Chhabra
Abstract
Identifying how training samples influence/impact Large Language Model (LLM) decision-making is essential for effectively interpreting model decisions and auditing large-scale datasets. Current training sample influence estimation methods (also known as influence functions) undertake this goal by utilizing information flow through the model via its first-order and higher-order gradient terms. However, owing to the large model sizes of today consisting of billions of parameters, these influence computations are often restricted to some subset of model layers to ensure computational feasibility. Prior seminal work by Yeh et al. (2022) in assessing which layers are best suited for computing language data influence concluded that the first (embedding) layers are the most informative for this purpose, using a hypothesis based on influence scores canceling out (i.e., the cancellation effect). In this work, we propose theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating how the cancellation effect is unreliable, and that middle attention layers are better estimators for influence. Furthermore, we address the broader challenge of aggregating influence scores across layers, and showcase how alternatives to standard averaging (such as ranking and vote-based methods) can lead to significantly improved performance. Finally, we propose better methods for evaluating influence score efficacy in LLMs without undertaking model retraining, and propose a new metric known as the Noise Detection Rate (NDR) that exhibits strong predictive capability compared to the cancellation effect. Through extensive experiments across LLMs of varying types and scales, we concretely determine that the first (layers) are not necessarily better than the last (layers) for LLM influence estimation, contrasting with prior knowledge in the field.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 98361390-eef1-4a2f-9619-3747f293298fBuilds on25
- LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language ModelsEdward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu et al.ICLR 2022 · 18,833 citations
- QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMsTim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, Luke ZettlemoyerNeurIPS 2023 · 5,863 citations
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 citations
- Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient DescentGarima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, Mukund SundararajanNeurIPS 2020 · 784 citations
- LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction TuningMengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, Sanjeev Arora et al.ICML 2024 · 460 citations
Related papers
- First is Better Than Last for Language Data InfluenceChih-Kuan Yeh, Ankur Taly, Mukund Sundararajan, Frederick Liu et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 39 citations
- Influence Scores at Scale for Efficient Language Data SamplingNikhil Anand, Joshua Tan, Maria MinakovaEMNLP 2023 · 1 citation
- Efficient Data Selection at Scale via Influence DistillationMahdi Nikdan, Vincent Cohen-Addad, Dan Alistarh, Vahab MirrokniNeurIPS 2025 · 15 citations
- RRInf: Efficient Influence Function Estimation via Ridge Regression for Large Language Models and Text-to-Image Diffusion ModelsZhuozhuo Tu, Cheng Chen, Yuxuan DuEMNLP 2025
- Understanding Influence Functions and Datamodels via Harmonic AnalysisNikunj Saunshi, Arushi Gupta, Mark Braverman, Sanjeev AroraICLR 2023 · 1 citation
