ExPLAIND: Unifying Model, Data, and Training Attribution to Study Model Behavior
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Post-hoc interpretability methods typically attribute a model's behavior to its components, data, or training trajectory in isolation, and are often tied to a particular level of granularity along the local-to-global spectrum. This leads to explanations that lack a unified view and may miss key interactions. We present ExPLAIND, a theoretically grounded, unified framework that integrates model components, data, and training trajectory while supporting explanations across granularities. We generalize recent work on gradient path kernels, reformulating models trained by AdamW as kernel machines. From the resulting kernel feature maps, we derive novel parameter-wise and step-wise influence scores. We empirically validate the resulting decomposition of model behavior in several settings and apply ExPLAIND to two case studies. Our findings on a Transformer exhibiting Grokking support previously proposed learning phases, while refining the final phase as one in which outer layers align around a representation pipeline learned after memorization. For EuroLLM pretraining, ExPLAIND reveals a two-phase dynamic, with the first characterized by outer-layer MLP learning and the second by increased relative influence of intermediate attention layers. These results establish ExPLAIND as a unified framework for interpreting model behavior and training dynamics.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.
Builds on
46 of 56 references.
References · 46
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,290
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2016Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNetscited by 1,143
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,059
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
34 more
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
- 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 636
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
- 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
- 2021Gradient Descent on Neural Networks Typically Occurs at the Edge of Stabilitycited by 427
- 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 367
- 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 326
- 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 283
- 2020Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragilecited by 252
- 2016Layer-wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layerscited by 199
- 2022Datamodels: Predicting Predictions from Training Datacited by 189
- 2024Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Trackingcited by 149
- 2022Omnigrok: Grokking Beyond Algorithmic Datacited by 146
- 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 144
- 2024Language-Specific Neurons: The Key to Multilingual Capabilities in Large Language Modelscited by 126
- 2024A Practical Review of Mechanistic Interpretability for Transformer-Based Language Modelscited by 118
- 2023Explaining grokking through circuit efficiencycited by 111
- 2024EuroLLM: Multilingual Language Models for Europecited by 106
- 2024Grokked Transformers are Implicit Reasoners: A Mechanistic Journey to the Edge of Generalizationcited by 79
- 2024LLM Circuit Analyses Are Consistent Across Training and Scalecited by 63
- 2020Every Model Learned by Gradient Descent Is Approximately a Kernel Machinecited by 55
- 2021HYDRA: Hypergradient Data Relevance Analysis for Interpreting Deep Neural Networkscited by 38
- 2025OLMoTrace: Tracing Language Model Outputs Back to Trillions of Training Tokenscited by 27
- 2024Mechanistic?cited by 25
- 2024Critical Data Size of Language Models from a Grokking Perspectivecited by 24
- 2023Subspace Chronicles: How Linguistic Information Emerges, Shifts and Interacts during Language Model Trainingcited by 23
- 2024Unified View of Grokking, Double Descent and Emergent Abilities: A Perspective from Circuits Competitioncited by 23
- 2019LCA: Loss Change Allocation for Neural Network Trainingcited by 9
- 2024Sparse, Efficient and Explainable Data Attribution with DualXDAcited by 6
- 2023An Exact Kernel Equivalence for Finite Classification Modelscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Copy First, Translate Later: Interpreting Translation Dynamics in Multilingual Pretrainingcited by 1
- 2026Where Grokking Happens: Distributed Utility and Fourier Recoding Without a Module Switchcited by 0
- 2026Don't Forget! Decomposing the Training Dynamics of Memorization in Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Don't Forget! Decomposing the Training Dynamics of Memorization in Language Models28 Sep 2026
- 2026Where Grokking Happens: Distributed Utility and Fourier Recoding Without a Module Switch29 Jul 2026
- 2026Copy First, Translate Later: Interpreting Translation Dynamics in Multilingual Pretraining19 Apr 2026