From Reweighting to Rewriting: Unlocking the Intervention Effects of Influential Samples in Training Data Attribution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Training data attribution (TDA) aims to identify training examples that shape model behavior, but its intervention value depends on both which examples are selected and how they are modified. Influence functions (IF) estimate behavioral changes under infinitesimal reweighting, yet IF-selected examples often show limited advantages over random selection under conventional weight-based interventions. This raises the question of whether influential examples lack intervention value or whether reweighting fails to realize their behavioral leverage.We introduce influence-guided response rewriting, which uses IF to identify intervention targets and replaces their responses with behavior-aligned or behavior-opposed supervision while keeping instructions fixed. Across four open-weight LLMs, we compare rewriting and reweighting on the same influence-selected examples using epistemic abstention as our primary testbed. Response rewriting produces stronger, more persistent, and bidirectional behavioral shifts, while reweighting the same examples yields weak and inconsistent effects. Further analyses show that influence-selected examples provide greater rewriting leverage than alternative selectors, with changes remaining concentrated on target-relevant behaviors. The same qualitative contrast extends to safety refusal. These results distinguish the local reweighting effects captured by influence estimates from the broader intervention leverage of the examples they identify, motivating intervention-aware evaluation of TDA methods.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.
Builds on
41 of 45 references.
References · 41
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 1,040
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
- 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
- 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 496
29 more
- 2023"Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Modelscited by 489
- 2022ToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detectioncited by 422
- 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
- 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 326
- 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 283
- 2023Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 243
- 2024WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Modelscited by 223
- 2024Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaborationcited by 180
- 2018Fast Approximate Natural Gradient Descent in a Kronecker-factored Eigenbasiscited by 146
- 2025AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questionscited by 145
- 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 144
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 121
- 2020FastIF: Scalable Influence Functions for Efficient Model Interpretation and Debuggingcited by 120
- 2023R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know'cited by 111
- 2024The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Modelscited by 105
- 2023Alignment for Honestycited by 74
- 2023Knowledge of Knowledge: Exploring Known-Unknowns Uncertainty with Large Language Modelscited by 61
- 2024Uncertainty-Based Abstention in LLMs Improves Safety and Reduces Hallucinationscited by 54
- 2024Do Influence Functions Work on Large Language Models?cited by 20
- 2025Bayesian Influence Functions for Hessian-Free Data Attributioncited by 14
- 2025Detecting (Un)answerability in Large Language Models with Linear Directionscited by 13
- 2025GRAIT: Gradient-Driven Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning for Effective Hallucination Mitigationcited by 11
- 2024Utilize the Flow before Stepping into the Same River Twice: Certainty Represented Knowledge Flow for Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuningcited by 10
- 2026Mechanistic Data Attribution: Tracing the Training Origins of Interpretable LLM Unitscited by 10
- 2026Concept Influence: Leveraging Interpretability to Improve Performance and Efficiency in Training Data Attributioncited by 8
- 2025Which Data Attributes Stimulate Math and Code Reasoning? An Investigation via Influence Functionscited by 7
- 2025Influence Dynamics and Stagewise Data Attributioncited by 7
- 2026Infusion: Shaping Model Behavior by Editing Training Data via Influence Functionscited by 5
- 2024InfFeed: Influence Functions as a Feedback to Improve the Performance of Subjective Taskscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.