Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functions

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 2005.06676 v1 pith:MFATPRWF submitted 2020-05-14 cs.CL cs.LG

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

Modern deep learning models for NLP are notoriously opaque. This has motivated the development of methods for interpreting such models, e.g., via gradient-based saliency maps or the visualization of attention weights. Such approaches aim to provide explanations for a particular model prediction by highlighting important words in the corresponding input text. While this might be useful for tasks where decisions are explicitly influenced by individual tokens in the input, we suspect that such highlighting is not suitable for tasks where model decisions should be driven by more complex reasoning. In this work, we investigate the use of influence functions for NLP, providing an alternative approach to interpreting neural text classifiers. Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. Despite the promise of this approach, influence functions have not yet been extensively evaluated in the context of NLP, a gap addressed by this work. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. As suspected, we find that influence functions are particularly useful for natural language inference, a task in which 'saliency maps' may not have clear interpretation. Furthermore, we develop a new quantitative measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. Fair Document Valuation in LLM Summaries via Shapley Values

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cluster Shapley groups semantically similar documents via embeddings and computes cluster-level Shapley values, claiming better efficiency-accuracy trade-offs than Monte Carlo and Kernel SHAP on Amazon review summarization.

  3. A Comparative Analysis of Influence Signals for Data Debugging

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A benchmark shows Self-Influence finds mislabeled training samples, while all tested influence signals fail to detect clustered anomalies and outliers under cumulative TracIn scoring.

  4. destroR: A Benchmark and Adversarial-Training Defense for Bangla Transfer Models under Meaning-Preserving Attacks

    cs.CL 2025-11 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Claims a Bangla adversarial-attack benchmark and defense, but the text delivers a single-model attack study with no defense and no baselines.

  5. Attributing Data for Sharpness-Aware Minimization

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    SAM-HIF and SAM-GIF are proposed as data attribution scores for SAM-trained models, but SAM-GIF is TracIn with SAM gradients and SAM-HIF's derivation contains a load-bearing error.

Pith tools