Training-Data Attribution

Training data attribution (TDA) methods offer to trace a model’s prediction on any given example back to specific influential training examples. Existing approaches do so by assigning a scalar influence score to each training example, under a simplifying assumption that influence is additive. But in reality, we observe that training examples interact in highly non-additive ways due to factors such as inter-example redundancy, training order, and curriculum learning effects. To study such interactions, we propose Simfluence, a new paradigm for TDA where the goal is not to produce a single influence score per example, but instead a training run simulator: the user asks, “If my model had trained on example z1, then z2, ..., then zn, how would it behave on ztest?”; the simulator should then output a simulated training run, which is a time series predicting the loss on ztest at every step of the simulated run. This enables users to answer counterfactual questions about what their model would have learned under different training curricula, and to directly see where in training that learning would occur. We present a simulator, Simfluence-Linear, that captures non-additive interactions and is often able to predict the spiky trajectory of individual example losses with surprising fidelity. Furthermore, we show that existing TDA methods such as TracIn and influence functions can be viewed as special cases of Simfluence-Linear. This enables us to directly compare methods in terms of their simulation accuracy, subsuming several prior TDA approaches to evaluation. In experiments on large language model (LLM) fine-tuning, we show that our method predicts loss trajectories with much higher accuracy than existing TDA methods (doubling Spearman’s correlation and reducing mean-squared error by 75%) across several tasks, models, and training methods.

Language models (LMs) have been shown to memorize a great deal of factual knowledge contained in their training data. But when an LM generates an assertion, it is often difficult to determine where it learned this information and whether it is true. In this paper, we propose the problem of fact tracing: identifying which training examples taught an LM to generate a particular factual assertion. Prior work on training data attribution (TDA) may offer effective tools for identifying such examples, known as "proponents". We present the first quantitative benchmark to evaluate this. We compare two popular families of TDA methods – gradient-based and embedding-based – and find that much headroom remains. For example, both methods have lower proponent-retrieval precision than an information retrieval baseline (BM25) that does not have access to the LM at all. We identify key challenges that may be necessary for further improvement such as overcoming the problem of gradient saturation, and also show how several nuanced implementation details of existing neural TDA methods can significantly improve overall fact tracing performance.