Relabeling Minimal Training Subset to Flip a Prediction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When facing an unsatisfactory prediction from a machine learning model, users can be interested in investigating the underlying reasons and exploring the potential for reversing the outcome. We ask: To flip the prediction on a test point xt, how to identify the smallest training subset St that we need to relabel? We propose an efficient algorithm to identify and relabel such a subset via an extended influence function for binary classification models with convex loss. We find that relabeling fewer than 2% of the training points can always flip a prediction. This mechanism can serve multiple purposes: (1) providing an approach to challenge a model prediction by altering training points; (2) evaluating model robustness with the cardinality of the subset (i.e., |St|); we show that |St| is highly related to the noise ratio in the training set and |St| is correlated with but complementary to predicted probabilities; and (3) revealing training points lead to group attribution bias. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate identifying and relabeling the minimal training subset required to flip a given prediction.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2023.
Builds on
23 of 50 references.
References · 23
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2018The Open Images Dataset V4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection at scalecited by 542
- 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
- 2021Persistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 376
- 2021Machine Unlearning of Features and Labelscited by 223
- 2018Hate Speech Dataset from a White Supremacy Forumcited by 196
- 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
- 2019On the Accuracy of Influence Functions for Measuring Group Effectscited by 146
- 2020Debugging Tests for Model Explanationscited by 146
11 more
- 2020Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functionscited by 144
- 2021Truthful AI: Developing and governing AI that does not liecited by 109
- 2021Input Similarity from the Neural Network Perspectivecited by 78
- 2018The Devil of Face Recognition is in the Noisecited by 65
- 2021Interactive Label Cleaning with Example-based Explanationscited by 48
- 2023Summarizing, Simplifying, and Synthesizing Medical Evidence Using GPT-3 (with Varying Success)cited by 40
- 2021Combining Feature and Instance Attribution to Detect Artifactscited by 38
- 2021An Empirical Comparison of Instance Attribution Methods for NLPcited by 35
- 2020An Automatic Finite-Sample Robustness Metric: When Can Dropping a Little Data Make a Big Difference?cited by 27
- 2019Disentangling Influence: Using Disentangled Representations to Audit Model Predictionscited by 11
- 2023How Many and Which Training Points Would Need to be Removed to Flip this Prediction?cited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3.
3 papers.