Data Debugging is NP-hard for Classifiers Trained with SGD
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data debugging is to find a subset of the training data such that the model obtained by retraining on the subset has a better accuracy. A bunch of heuristic approaches are proposed, however, none of them are guaranteed to solve this problem effectively. This leaves an open issue whether there exists an efficient algorithm to find the subset such that the model obtained by retraining on it has a better accuracy. To answer this open question and provide theoretical basis for further study on developing better algorithms for data debugging, we investigate the computational complexity of the problem named Debuggable. Given a machine learning model M obtained by training on dataset D and a test instance (xtest,ytest) where M(xtest)neq ytest, Debuggable is to determine whether there exists a subset D^prime of D such that the model M^prime obtained by retraining on D^prime satisfies M^prime(xtest)=ytest. To cover a wide range of commonly used models, we take SGD-trained linear classifier as the model and derive the following main results. (1) If the loss function and the dimension of the model are not fixed, Debuggable is NP-complete regardless of the training order in which all the training samples are processed during SGD. (2) For hinge-like loss functions, a comprehensive analysis on the computational complexity of Debuggable is provided; (3) If the loss function is a linear function, Debuggable can be solved in linear time, that is, data debugging can be solved easily in this case. These results not only highlight the limitations of current approaches but also offer new insights into data debugging.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Aug 2024.
Builds on
16 of 26 references.
References · 16
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 617
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
- 2019Towards Efficient Data Valuation Based on the Shapley Valuecited by 279
- 2019Efficient Task-Specific Data Valuation for Nearest Neighbor Algorithmscited by 147
- 2019On the Accuracy of Influence Functions for Measuring Group Effectscited by 146
- 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 142
- 2020FastIF: Scalable Influence Functions for Efficient Model Interpretation and Debuggingcited by 120
- 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 90
- 2019Data Cleansing for Models Trained with SGDcited by 67
- 2018Interpreting Black Box Predictions using Fisher Kernelscited by 48
- 2019Repairing without Retraining: Avoiding Disparate Impact with Counterfactual Distributionscited by 48
4 more
- 2021Does the Order of Training Samples Matter? Improving Neural Data-to-Text Generation with Curriculum Learningcited by 34
- 2021Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debuggingcited by 30
- 2020Complaint-driven Training Data Debugging for Query 2.0cited by 16
- 2021Enabling SQL-based Training Data Debugging for Federated Learningcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.