Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragile
Samyadeep Basu, Phillip Pope, Soheil Feizi
Abstract
Influence functions approximate the effect of training samples in test-time predictions and have a wide variety of applications in machine learning interpretability and uncertainty estimation. A commonly-used (first-order) influence function can be implemented efficiently as a post-hoc method requiring access only to the gradients and Hessian of the model. For linear models, influence functions are well-defined due to the convexity of the underlying loss function and are generally accurate even across difficult settings where model changes are fairly large such as estimating group influences. Influence functions, however, are not well-understood in the context of deep learning with non-convex loss functions. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive and large-scale empirical study of successes and failures of influence functions in neural network models trained on datasets such as Iris, MNIST, CIFAR-10 and ImageNet. Through our extensive experiments, we show that the network architecture, its depth and width, as well as the extent of model parameterization and regularization techniques have strong effects in the accuracy of influence functions. In particular, we find that (i) influence estimates are fairly accurate for shallow networks, while for deeper networks the estimates are often erroneous; (ii) for certain network architectures and datasets, training with weight-decay regularization is important to get high-quality influence estimates; and (iii) the accuracy of influence estimates can vary significantly depending on the examined test points. These results suggest that in general influence functions in deep learning are fragile and call for developing improved influence estimation methods to mitigate these issues in non-convex setups.
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 c474a014-8e13-4842-b653-49faca93d2d6Cited by top-tier papers127
- LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction TuningMengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, Sanjeev Arora et al.ICML 2024 · 460 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
- Adversarial Examples Make Strong PoisonsLiam Fowl, Micah Goldblum, Ping-yeh Chiang, Jonas Geiping et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 185 citations
- Counterfactual Memorization in Neural Language ModelsChiyuan Zhang, Daphne Ippolito, Katherine Lee, Matthew Jagielski et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 184 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Towards Robust Influence Functions with Flat Validation MinimaXichen Ye, Yifan Wu, Weizhong Zhang, Cheng Jin et al.ICML 2025
- Theoretical and Practical Perspectives on what Influence Functions DoAndrea Schioppa, Katja Filippova, Ivan Titov, Polina ZablotskaiaNeurIPS 2023 · 38 citations
- Bayesian Influence Functions for Hessian-Free Data AttributionPhilipp Alexander Kreer, Wilson Wu, Maxwell Adam, Zach Furman et al.ICLR 2026 · 14 citations
- Understanding Influence Functions and Datamodels via Harmonic AnalysisNikunj Saunshi, Arushi Gupta, Mark Braverman, Sanjeev AroraICLR 2023 · 1 citation
- Discriminative Jackknife: Quantifying Uncertainty in Deep Learning via Higher-Order Influence FunctionsAhmed M. Alaa, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2020 · 59 citations
