Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragile

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2006.14651 v2 pith:ZCEG3B6T submitted 2020-06-25 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords influencefunctionsestimateslearningdeepmodelnetworkaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 15 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Influence Diagnostics in High-dimensional M-estimation: Precise Asymptotics

    stat.ML 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Under Gaussian design with n ≍ d, the empirical distribution of leave-one-out influences for convex M-estimators converges to the pushforward of a four-dimensional Gaussian through an explicit nonlinear map built from...

  2. Representation Unlearning: Forgetting through Information Compression

    cs.LG 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Representation Unlearning removes the influence of specific training samples by learning a lightweight transformation over the model's penultimate-layer representations, guided by information-bottleneck variational bounds.

  3. Better Training Data Attribution via Better Inverse Hessian-Vector Products

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ASTRA, an EKFAC-preconditioned Neumann series iteration, computes more accurate inverse Hessian-vector products and improves training data attribution scores over EKFAC baselines.

  4. Newfluence: Boosting Model interpretability and Understanding in High Dimensions

    stat.ML 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In high-dimensional regression, classical influence functions underestimate true leave-one-out influence by a per-point factor, and the proposed Newfluence estimator corrects this bias.

Pith tools