Natural Geometry of Robust Data Attribution: From Convex Models to Deep Networks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data attribution methods identify which training examples are responsible for a model's predictions, but their sensitivity to distributional perturbations undermines practical reliability. We present a unified framework for certified robust attribution that extends from convex models to deep networks. For convex settings, we derive Wasserstein-Robust Influence Functions (W-RIF) with provable coverage guarantees. For deep networks, we demonstrate that Euclidean certification is rendered vacuous by spectral amplification -- a mechanism where the inherent ill-conditioning of deep representations inflates Lipschitz bounds by over 10,000×. This explains why standard TRAK scores, while accurate point estimates, are geometrically fragile: naive Euclidean robustness analysis yields 0% certification. Our key contribution is the Natural Wasserstein metric, which measures perturbations in the geometry induced by the model's own feature covariance. This eliminates spectral amplification, reducing worst-case sensitivity by 76× and stabilizing attribution estimates. On CIFAR-10 with ResNet-18, Natural W-TRAK certifies 68.7% of ranking pairs compared to 0% for Euclidean baselines -- to our knowledge, the first non-vacuous certified bounds for neural network attribution. Furthermore, we prove that the Self-Influence term arising from our analysis equals the Lipschitz constant governing attribution stability, providing theoretical grounding for leverage-based anomaly detection. Empirically, Self-Influence achieves 0.970 AUROC for label noise detection, identifying 94.1% of corrupted labels by examining just the top 20% of training data.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Dec 2025.
Builds on
26 of 36 references.
References · 26
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2018Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,618
- 2019Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothingcited by 1,324
- 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,020
- 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 713
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 617
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 565
- 2017Sharp Minima Can Generalize For Deep Netscited by 462
- 2018Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: analysis and efficient estimationcited by 413
- 2018Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss Minimizationcited by 363
14 more
- 2017Certifying Some Distributional Robustness with Principled Adversarial Trainingcited by 333
- 2018On the Effectiveness of Interval Bound Propagation for Training Verifiably Robust Modelscited by 322
- 2017Empirical Analysis of the Hessian of Over-Parametrized Neural Networkscited by 283
- 2019Towards Efficient Data Valuation Based on the Shapley Valuecited by 279
- 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 273
- 2020Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragilecited by 247
- 2024Rethinking Machine Unlearning for Large Language Modelscited by 247
- 2022Datamodels: Predicting Predictions from Training Datacited by 186
- 2019Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Optimization: Theory and Applications in Machine Learningcited by 169
- 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 142
- 2020Distributional Robustness and Regularization in Reinforcement Learningcited by 39
- 2021Revisiting Methods for Finding Influential Examplescited by 39
- 2018Optimal Transport Based Distributionally Robust Optimization: Structural Properties and Iterative Schemescited by 30
- 2020Explaining Deep Neural Networkscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.