揭示轨迹数据归因方法的三大误差源并给出实用改进方案
How Faithful Is Trajectory-Based Data Attribution? Error Sources, Remedies, and Practical Guidelines

- 发现优化器不匹配是主要误差来源,提出AdamW-influence修正
- 量化一阶近似误差,推导出无需重训练的误差代理公式
- 统一离线与在线选择策略,给出可调超参数的实践指南
轨迹式数据归因方法通过回溯训练过程估计样本对模型预测的影响,广泛应用于数据筛选、数据估值和模型诊断。然而现有方法缺乏系统性误差分析,影响其可信度。本文首次系统剖析轨迹归因中的三类误差:配置级、算法级与系统级。首先,识别出优化器不匹配为关键问题:多数方法基于SGD假设,但实际使用AdamW训练。为此提出AdamW-influence,使在MLP、CNN、GPT-2和Llama 3.2-1B四个设置中,斯皮尔曼相关系数提升10%至300%以上。其次,分离出由一阶泰勒近似引发的算法级误差,发现学习率与轨迹长度决定误差大小,并推导出可在原轨迹上直接评估的闭式误差代理。最后,将上述发现整合为实践指南,提出基于K步前瞻的统一框架,证明短时在线筛选常优于或媲美离线方法,最优前瞻步长可与学习率协同调优。整体形成面向从业者的可执行数据选择方案。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Trajectory-based data attribution methods estimate the influence of training samples on model predictions by unrolling the training trajectory. They are widely used in applications such as data selection, data valuation, and model diagnosis, but there is a lack of comprehensive error analysis of these methods, raising concerns about method faithfulness and hindering reliable deployment. In this work, we provide the first systematic analysis of error sources in trajectory-based data attribution, together with concrete remedies to mitigate them and practical guidelines for downstream use. We organize the total error into three categories, config-level, algorithm-level, and system-level. We make three contributions. First, we identify optimizer mismatch as the dominant config-level error: existing methods derive their attribution under the assumption of SGD, even for models trained with the modern de facto optimizer AdamW. We propose AdamW-influence to fully account for AdamW's optimization dynamics, yielding improvements from 10% to over 300% in Spearman correlation between estimated and ground-truth influence across four settings spanning MLP, CNN, GPT-2, and Llama 3.2-1B. Second, we isolate the remaining algorithm-level error arising from the first-order Taylor approximation, identify the learning rate and trajectory length as factors governing the error magnitude, and derive a closed-form error proxy that can be evaluated along the original trajectory without retraining. Third, we translate these insights into practical guidelines for data selection by unifying offline and online strategies under a K-step look-ahead framework. Under this framework, online selection with a short horizon often matches or exceeds offline, and the optimal horizon can be tuned jointly with the learning rate. Together, these results turn the framework into an actionable selection recipe for practitioners.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。