mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Efficiently Verifiable Proofs of Data Attribution

arXiv 2508.10866 ↗First posted 14 Aug 2025cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Data attribution methods aim to answer useful counterfactual questions like "what would a ML model's prediction be if it were trained on a different dataset?" However, estimation of data attribution models through techniques like empirical influence or "datamodeling" remains very computationally expensive. This causes a critical trust issue: if only a few computationally rich parties can obtain data attributions, how can resource-constrained parties trust that the provided attributions are indeed "good," especially when they are used for important downstream applications (e.g., data pricing)? In this paper, we address this trust issue by proposing an interactive verification paradigm for data attribution. An untrusted and computationally powerful Prover learns data attributions, and then engages in an interactive proof with a resource-constrained Verifier. Our main result is a protocol that provides formal completeness, soundness, and efficiency guarantees in the sense of Probably-Approximately-Correct (PAC) verification. Specifically, if both Prover and Verifier follow the protocol, the Verifier accepts data attributions that are ε-close to the optimal data attributions (in terms of the Mean Squared Error) with probability 1-δ. Conversely, if the Prover arbitrarily deviates from the protocol, even with infinite compute, then this is detected (or it still yields data attributions to the Verifier) except with probability δ. Importantly, our protocol ensures the Verifier's workload, measured by the number of independent model retrainings it must perform, scales only as O(1/ε); i.e., independently of the dataset size. At a technical level, our results apply to efficiently verifying any linear function over the boolean hypercube computed by the Prover, making them broadly applicable to various attribution tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2025.

Builds on

18 of 28 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
  2. 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
  3. 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 497
  4. 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 326
  5. 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 283
  6. 2019Towards Efficient Data Valuation Based on the Shapley Valuecited by 281
  7. 2022Datamodels: Predicting Predictions from Training Datacited by 189
  8. 2018Representer Point Selection for Explaining Deep Neural Networkscited by 187
  9. 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 144
  10. 2024DsDm: Model-Aware Dataset Selection with Datamodelscited by 105
  11. 2024What is Your Data Worth to GPT? LLM-Scale Data Valuation with Influence Functionscited by 94
  12. 2023Simfluence: Modeling the Influence of Individual Training Examples by Simulating Training Runscited by 53
6 more
  1. 2020An Automatic Finite-Sample Robustness Metric: When Can Dropping a Little Data Make a Big Difference?cited by 27
  2. 2022Understanding Influence Functions and Datamodels via Harmonic Analysiscited by 23
  3. 2022On the Trade-Off between Actionable Explanations and the Right to be Forgottencited by 20
  4. 2024Decomposing and Editing Predictions by Modeling Model Computationcited by 19
  5. 2024Attribute-to-Delete: Machine Unlearning via Datamodel Matchingcited by 18
  6. 2024Data Debiasing with Datamodels (D3M): Improving Subgroup Robustness via Data Selectioncited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.