Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descent
About
We introduce a method called TracIn that computes the influence of a training example on a prediction made by the model. The idea is to trace how the loss on the test point changes during the training process whenever the training example of interest was utilized. We provide a scalable implementation of TracIn via: (a) a first-order gradient approximation to the exact computation, (b) saved checkpoints of standard training procedures, and (c) cherry-picking layers of a deep neural network. In contrast with previously proposed methods, TracIn is simple to implement; all it needs is the ability to work with gradients, checkpoints, and loss functions. The method is general. It applies to any machine learning model trained using stochastic gradient descent or a variant of it, agnostic of architecture, domain and task. We expect the method to be widely useful within processes that study and improve training data.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data-to-text generation | E2E (test) | BLEU34.9 | 33 | |
| Influence Estimation | TruthfulQA (test) | Spearman Correlation0.574 | 14 | |
| Influence Estimation | ToxiGen (test) | Spearman Correlation0.337 | 14 | |
| Influence Estimation | WinoBias (test) | Spearman Correlation0.201 | 14 | |
| Case Deletion Diagnostics | MNIST binary subsample (test) | AUC-DEL Score4.2 | 11 | |
| High-value data removal | CIFAR10 binarized (test) | AUC (Data Elimination Impact)2.84 | 11 | |
| Case Deletion Diagnostics | Toxicity binary subsample (test) | AUC-DEL1.59 | 10 | |
| Case Deletion Diagnostics | AGnews binary subsample (test) | AUC-DEL2.18 | 10 | |
| Summarization | NYT Summarization (test) | Hallucination Rate17.16 | 10 | |
| Text Classification | Toxicity BERT-small targeted Kaggle 2018 (test) | AUC-DEL+0.016 | 7 |