REVIEW 2 cited by
What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimation
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
What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimation
read the original abstract
Deep learning algorithms are well-known to have a propensity for fitting the training data very well and often fit even outliers and mislabeled data points. Such fitting requires memorization of training data labels, a phenomenon that has attracted significant research interest but has not been given a compelling explanation so far. A recent work of Feldman (2019) proposes a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon based on a combination of two insights. First, natural image and data distributions are (informally) known to be long-tailed, that is have a significant fraction of rare and atypical examples. Second, in a simple theoretical model such memorization is necessary for achieving close-to-optimal generalization error when the data distribution is long-tailed. However, no direct empirical evidence for this explanation or even an approach for obtaining such evidence were given. In this work we design experiments to test the key ideas in this theory. The experiments require estimation of the influence of each training example on the accuracy at each test example as well as memorization values of training examples. Estimating these quantities directly is computationally prohibitive but we show that closely-related subsampled influence and memorization values can be estimated much more efficiently. Our experiments demonstrate the significant benefits of memorization for generalization on several standard benchmarks. They also provide quantitative and visually compelling evidence for the theory put forth in (Feldman, 2019).
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Quantifying the Agreement Between Data-Influence and Data-Similarity to Understand LLM Behavior
Data-similarity and data-influence produce significantly overlapping rankings of training documents for LLM outputs, with asymmetry allowing a favorable cost-accuracy trade-off.
-
When unlearning is free: leveraging low influence points to reduce computational costs
Low-influence training points can be dropped from forget/retain sets before unlearning, cutting runtime up to ~50% with little measured loss in accuracy or MIA-based privacy.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.