Learned, Then Lost: A Measured Single-Example Counterfactual in Pre-training

A single training example's contribution to a finished model is normally estimated rather than measured, because measuring it takes two expensive full pre-training runs that differ in one row of one batch. We ran that counterfactual 24 times at a small scale. We trained 32 GPT-2 models at 124M parameters from scratch on OpenWebText, over four conditions and eight seeds. At step 200 of 9,536, at peak learning rate, we replaced one row of a 256-row batch with a fixed context injection carrying a 194-token passage. The three injected conditions are: 1. fluent prose with a corpus-attested subject, 2. fluent prose with a fabricated subject matched to it within 0.14% on full-batch gradient delta, and 3. random keyboard characters. The fourth condition is an uninjected twin. The passage is learned from one exposure and then decays. Fifty steps after injection, the arm that saw a passage predicts it better than the arm that did not by 0.039 and 0.044 nats of cross-entropy on the passage, at eight of eight seeds with p < $10^{-4}$. At the final step we do not detect that difference for either passage, at p = 0.25 and p = 0.71, against minimum detectable effects of 0.025 and 0.079 nats, nor between the two passages, at p=0.54. Every geometric measure we report is taken after that decay. Our pre-registered contrast on interpolation loss barrier is +0.0068 with p = 0.509, against a minimum detectable effect of 0.032 barrier units. Held-out cross-entropy is $-0.00044$ with p = 0.310. Per-layer centered kernel alignment does not detectably separate any condition at any layer. Weight displacement reaches 44.1% of the seed-to-seed Euclidean distance and is 92% settled by the midpoint of training, while the barrier reaches 3.0% of the seed-to-seed barrier. Those two figures sit roughly 15 times apart, and that is a lower bound. The injection relocates the model within its basin without moving it out.

Measuring Task-Agnostic Training Data Influence Across Language Model Pretraining

Measuring training data influence consistently across language model pretraining is challenging. It is difficult to select downstream tasks or validation sets representative of a model's general capabilities, and reliance on task performance at intermediate checkpoints complicates comparisons across training. We propose a measure of training data influence that does not require selecting a downstream task or validation set as the attribution target. Specifically, we define an example's influence by how much its gradient update reduces the squared distance to the final parameters of a given pretraining run, and estimate this quantity from intermediate checkpoints without retraining. Applying the method to 18 configurations from the Pythia and PolyPythia suites, we find systematic temporal changes in influential data. Early in training, literature-related data are more strongly aligned with the trajectory toward the final parameters, whereas STEM data become more strongly aligned in later stages. This qualitative crossover is broadly consistent across model configurations. Our results provide a tractable trajectory-level view of how influential data change throughout pretraining, complementing influence analyses defined with respect to specific downstream tasks or validation sets.

Quantifying the Agreement Between Data-Influence and Data-Similarity to Understand LLM Behavior

One way to understand LLM behavior is to trace its output back to the training data. Two types of measures are commonly used for output tracing: data-similarity and data-influence. The former is cheaper while the latter is believed to be more accurate. Even though many works have compared them for ground-truth tasks, no such comparisons exist for output tracing. Here, we fill this gap and precisely quantify the commonalities and differences between the two measures. We do this by first ranking the training documents according to each measure and then computing the overlap between the two rankings. Our main finding is that the two rankings agree significantly, but there is an asymmetry between them: The top documents of data-similarity are assigned more consistent ranks by data-influence than the other way around. This result is valid across a range of experiments involving OLMo2-1B, Qwen3-1.7B, LlaMa3.2-1B, Gemma3-1B, and GPT2. We exploit the asymmetry to obtain a favorable cost-accuracy trade-off by using the costly data-influence to refine the results of data-similarity.