From Reweighting to Rewriting: Unlocking the Intervention Effects of Influential Samples in Training Data Attribution

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.

Data Citation for Large Language Models: A Challenge

Large language models increasingly mediate access to information, and a growing body of work asks whether they cite the sources behind their outputs. That work treats citation as a verification device and applies it to textual documents. Scholarly citation serves two further functions, credit and provenance, and it applies to data as much as to text. This paper argues that data citation for large language models is an open challenge, distinct from document-level citation grounding and harder to solve. We ask how such models should cite data so that outputs stay verifiable, provenance stays traceable, and credit reaches data creators and curators. We set out three research directions. Training data attribution has to turn influence estimates into references for corpora absorbed into model parameters. Data citation at inference time has to identify datasets, subsets, and query results at the right granularity and fixity. Citing knowledge graph facts has to define what a reference to a single triple denotes and how credit propagates along provenance. Progress on all three depends on joint work across the database, information retrieval, knowledge representation, and artificial intelligence communities.

Prototype Language Models

Knowing which training examples drive outputs is fundamental to auditing, correcting, and understanding language models, yet for modern LLMs this remains expensive, approximate, and largely post-hoc. Standard language models generate tokens through a dense network pathway, causing training data's influence to be distributed across parameters rather than organized along explicit, traceable components. We introduce a prototype language model architecture, Prototypes for Interpretable Sequence Modeling (PRISM), that forms each prediction via a sparse, non-negative mixture of learned prototypes, trained with clustering objectives that anchor each prototype to coherent neighborhoods of training examples. Across architectures from 130M to 1.6B parameters trained on up to 50B tokens, prototype language models either surpass or remain within 2.5 percentage points on average downstream accuracy of matched dense baselines. We show that sparse prototype structure localizes curvature in the loss landscape, yielding a more tractable Hessian and enabling training data attribution that is ~500x faster than post hoc baselines when consuming equivalent memory. Calibrating linear prototype controllers can improve downstream accuracy by roughly 3 points while tracing those corrections back to training neighborhoods, and targeted prototype suppression can remove model behaviors without finetuning or measurable loss in generation quality.

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.

STRIDE: Training Data Attribution via Sparse Recovery from Subset Perturbations

Training Data Attribution (TDA) seeks to trace a model's predictions back to its training data. The gold standard for TDA relies on causal interventions, observing how a model changes when data is added or removed, but repeated retraining is computationally challenging for Large Language Models (LLMs). Consequently, most approaches approximate this effect in the parameter space using gradients. However, tracking gradients across billions of parameters is not only prohibitively expensive but relies on local approximations. In this work, we propose a shift: rather than estimating parameter changes, we model the functional effect of training data in the activation space. We introduce STRIDE (Steering-based Training Data Influence Decomposition), a framework that formulates TDA as a sparse recovery problem in the spirit of compressive sensing. STRIDE learns lightweight "steering operators" that mimic the behavioral shift caused by training on data subsets. By measuring how these operators perturb test predictions, we recover individual training example influences via sparse linear decomposition. STRIDE achieves state-of-the-art for LLM pre-training attribution while being an order of magnitude ($13\times$) faster than previous art. We further validate its practical utility through downstream applications including data selection, data contamination, and qualitative analysis.