Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

An Empirical Comparison of Instance Attribution Methods for NLP

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 2104.04128 v1 pith:FCHRHPE2 submitted 2021-04-09 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords methodsattributioninstanceinstancestrainingapproachesdegreeprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Widespread adoption of deep models has motivated a pressing need for approaches to interpret network outputs and to facilitate model debugging. Instance attribution methods constitute one means of accomplishing these goals by retrieving training instances that (may have) led to a particular prediction. Influence functions (IF; Koh and Liang 2017) provide machinery for doing this by quantifying the effect that perturbing individual train instances would have on a specific test prediction. However, even approximating the IF is computationally expensive, to the degree that may be prohibitive in many cases. Might simpler approaches (e.g., retrieving train examples most similar to a given test point) perform comparably? In this work, we evaluate the degree to which different potential instance attribution agree with respect to the importance of training samples. We find that simple retrieval methods yield training instances that differ from those identified via gradient-based methods (such as IFs), but that nonetheless exhibit desirable characteristics similar to more complex attribution methods. Code for all methods and experiments in this paper is available at: https://github.com/successar/instance_attributions_NLP.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Planted in Pretraining, Swayed by Finetuning: A Case Study on the Origins of Cognitive Biases in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cognitive biases in LLMs are largely set during pretraining, while finetuning data and seed randomness only modulate them.

Pith tools