Final-Model-Only Data Attribution with a Unifying View of Gradient-Based Methods
Dennis Wei, Inkit Padhi, Soumya Ghosh, Amit Dhurandhar, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Maria Chang
Abstract
Training data attribution (TDA) is concerned with understanding model behavior in terms of the training data. This paper draws attention to the common setting where one has access only to the final trained model, and not the training algorithm or intermediate information from training. We reframe the problem in this "final-model-only" setting as one of measuring sensitivity of the model to training instances. To operationalize this reframing, we propose further training, with appropriate adjustment and averaging, as a gold standard method to measure sensitivity. We then unify existing gradient-based methods for TDA by showing that they all approximate the further training gold standard in different ways. We investigate empirically the quality of these gradient-based approximations to further training, for tabular, image, and text datasets and models. We find that the approximation quality of first-order methods is sometimes high but decays with the amount of further training. In contrast, the approximations given by influence function methods are more stable but surprisingly lower in quality.
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 b6056f60-2c19-46a3-aaaa-1610bac77649Cited by top-tier papers2
- PINNfluence: Interpreting PINNs through Influence FunctionsAleksander Krasowski, Jonas Naujoks, Moritz Weckbecker, Galip Yolcu et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- On the Fragility of Data Attribution When Learning Is DistributedXian Gao, Bo Hui, MIN-TE SUN, Wei-Shinn KuICML 2026
Builds on22
- Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient DescentGarima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, Mukund SundararajanNeurIPS 2020 · 784 citations
- What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence EstimationVitaly Feldman, Chiyuan ZhangNeurIPS 2020 · 674 citations
- Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine LearningFrances Ding, Moritz Hardt, John Miller, Ludwig SchmidtNeurIPS 2021 · 671 citations
- TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at ScaleSung Min Park, Kristian Georgiev, Andrew Ilyas, Guillaume Leclerc et al.ICML 2023 · 260 citations
- If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?Juhan Bae, Nathan Ng, Alston Lo, Marzyeh Ghassemi et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 185 citations
Related papers
- Distributional Training Data Attribution: What do Influence Functions Sample?Bruno Kacper Mlodozeniec, Isaac Reid, Sam Power, David Krueger et al.NeurIPS 2025
- Training Data Attribution via Approximate UnrollingJuhan Bae, Wu Lin, Jonathan Lorraine, Roger B. GrosseNeurIPS 2024 · 41 citations
- Rescaled Influence Functions: Accurate Data Attribution in High DimensionIttai Rubinstein, Samuel B. HopkinsNeurIPS 2025 · 3 citations
- Taming Hyperparameter Sensitivity in Data Attribution: Practical Selection Without Costly RetrainingWeiyi Wang, Junwei Deng, Yuzheng Hu, Shiyuan Zhang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 4 citations
- Enhancing Training Data Attribution with Representational OptimizationWeiwei Sun, Haokun Liu, Nikhil Kandpal, Colin A. Raffel et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 9 citations
