Detecting labeling bias using influence functions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Labeling bias arises during data collection due to resource limitations or unconscious bias, leading to unequal label error rates across subgroups or misrepresentation of subgroup prevalence. Most fairness constraints assume training labels reflect the true distribution, rendering them ineffective when labeling bias is present; leaving a challenging question, that textithow can we detect such labeling bias? In this work, we investigate whether influence functions can be used to detect labeling bias. Influence functions estimate how much each training sample affects a model's predictions by leveraging the gradient and Hessian of the loss function -- when labeling errors occur, influence functions can identify wrongly labeled samples in the training set, revealing the underlying failure mode. We develop a sample valuation pipeline and test it first on the MNIST dataset, then scaled to the more complex CheXpert medical imaging dataset. To examine label noise, we introduced controlled errors by flipping 20% of the labels for one class in the dataset. Using a diagonal Hessian approximation, we demonstrated promising results, successfully detecting nearly 90% of mislabeled samples in MNIST. On CheXpert, mislabeled samples consistently exhibit higher influence scores. These results highlight the potential of influence functions for identifying label errors.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Feb 2026.
Builds on
16 of 20 references.
References · 16
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,410
- 2021Laplace Redux -- Effortless Bayesian Deep Learningcited by 359
- 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 311
- 2020Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragilecited by 247
- 2019Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learningcited by 146
- 2020FastIF: Scalable Influence Functions for Efficient Model Interpretation and Debuggingcited by 120
- 2021Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it?cited by 65
- 2019Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy?cited by 50
- 2022Achieving Fairness at No Utility Cost via Data Reweighing with Influencecited by 38
- 2022Understanding Instance-Level Impact of Fairness Constraintscited by 27
- 2022FairIF: Boosting Fairness in Deep Learning via Influence Functions with Validation Set Sensitive Attributescited by 12
4 more
- 2024How to be fair? A study of label and selection biascited by 11
- 2024Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 9
- 2022How Biased are Your Features?: Computing Fairness Influence Functions with Global Sensitivity Analysiscited by 7
- 2022Social Bias Meets Data Bias: The Impacts of Labeling and Measurement Errors on Fairness Criteriacited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.