Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Jiaqi W. Ma

Publications and source records attributed to Jiaqi W. Ma.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

dattri-LLM: A Unified and Efficient Library for Training Data Attribution at LLM Scale

Training data attribution (TDA) estimates the contribution of individual training examples to model outputs. Most scalable TDA methods rely on per-example gradients, whose computation and use at LLM scale pose challenges in efficiency, compatibility, and extensibility. We introduce dattri-LLM, a TDA library that makes gradient-based attribution more practical at scale. For efficiency, dattri-LLM uses compact gradient representations and dynamically routes gradient operations based on a cost model. For compatibility, its capture mechanism collects per-example gradients from existing training loops that call backward(), without requiring changes to the loop or its configuration. This includes distributed training with DDP and FSDP and pipelines built with HuggingFace Transformers, TRL, and OLMo. For extensibility, dattri-LLM exposes reusable gradient operations and training-time callbacks for implementing attribution methods and applications. These interfaces support a variety of attribution methods, including gradient similarity, curvature-based influence, and trajectory-based methods, as well as applications that act on gradients during training, such as online data selection. On the same hardware and workload, dattri-LLM achieves 3.2x the throughput of the fastest competing library on average, scales multiple attribution methods to 110B-parameter models across four H200 GPUs, and offers superior attribution fidelity-cost trade-offs across a range of models with different model families and scales. The source code of dattri-LLM is available at https://github.com/TRAIS-Lab/dattri-llm.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Distilling Diffusion Score Discrepancy for Efficient Training Data Attribution

Training data attribution for diffusion models aims to identify the training samples that influence a generated instance, but existing methods either require costly per-sample gradient computation or query-specific model optimization. Moreover, most methods attribute changes in a proxy loss rather than changes in the actual model's generative behavior. We address these limitations by formulating attribution directly with a local score discrepancy measure, which applies to any diffusion variant (including DDPM, EDM, and flow matching), and by showing that such measure can be estimated without retraining, as a preconditioned gradient similarity. We instantiate this estimator as Training-data Influence via score Discrepancy (TID), which uses Kronecker-factored curvature to avoid random projections and per-sample gradient storage. We then distill TID into TIDE, a forward-only student trained online to reproduce the teacher's rankings from the diffusion model's internal activations. Under counterfactual evaluation on CIFAR-10, ArtBench-10, and MS-COCO, TID matches or outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, while TIDE retains most of TID's accuracy at four to five orders of magnitude lower per-query cost, attributing generated samples in milliseconds and faster than the generation itself.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

FlyAOC: Evaluating Agentic Ontology Curation of Drosophila Scientific Knowledge Bases

Scientific knowledge bases accelerate discovery by curating findings from primary literature into structured, queryable formats for both human researchers and emerging AI systems. Maintaining these resources requires expert curators to search papers, reconcile evidence across documents, and produce ontology-grounded annotations. Existing benchmarks usually evaluate isolated subtasks, such as named entity recognition or relation extraction, and therefore do not capture this end-to-end workflow. We present FlyAOC to evaluate AI agents on end-to-end agentic ontology curation from scientific literature. Given a gene symbol, a concise FlyBase gene description, access to a 16,898-paper corpus, and ontology resources, agents must search for evidence and recover as many curator-relevant structured annotations as possible. Outputs span standardized function terms, expression patterns, and historical synonyms linking decades of nomenclature. The benchmark includes 7,397 expert-curated annotations across 100 genes drawn from FlyBase, the Drosophila knowledge base. Across four baseline agent harnesses---memorization, fixed pipeline, single-agent, and multi-agent---FlyAOC is sensitive to harness design, model family, and tool-use reliability. These results reveal system-level failure modes that model-only evaluations do not capture. FlyAOC provides a reproducible testbed for retrieval-augmented scientific curation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Improving Influence-based Instruction Tuning Data Selection for Balanced Learning of Diverse Capabilities

Selecting appropriate training data is crucial for instruction fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs), which aims to (1) elicit strong capabilities, and (2) achieve balanced performance across different tasks. Influence-based methods show promise in achieving (1), by estimating the contribution of each training example to the model's predictions, but often struggle with (2). Our systematic investigation reveals that this underperformance can be attributed to an inherent bias, where some tasks intrinsically have greater influence than others. As a result, data selection is often biased towards these tasks, not only hurting the model's performance on others but also, counterintuitively, harming performance on these high-influence tasks themselves. To address this, we propose BIDS, a Balanced and Influential Data Selection algorithm. BIDS first normalizes influence scores of the training data, and then iteratively chooses the training example with the highest influence on the most underrepresented task. Experiments with both Llama-3 and Mistral-v0.3 on seven benchmarks spanning five diverse capabilities show that BIDS consistently outperforms both state-of-the-art influence-based algorithms and other non-influence-based frameworks. Surprisingly, training on a 15% subset selected by BIDS can even outperform full-dataset training with a much more balanced performance. Our analysis highlights the importance of both instance-level normalization and iterative optimization of selected data for balanced learning of diverse capabilities.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

OATS: Online Data Augmentation for Time Series Foundation Models

Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) are a powerful paradigm for time series analysis and are often enhanced by synthetic data augmentation to improve the training data quality. Existing augmentation methods, however, typically rely on heuristics and static paradigms. Motivated by dynamic data optimization, which shows that the contribution of samples varies across training stages, we propose OATS (Online Data Augmentation for Time Series Foundation Models), a principled strategy that generates synthetic data tailored to different training steps. OATS leverages valuable training samples as principled guiding signals and dynamically generates high-quality synthetic data conditioned on them. We further design a diffusion-based framework to produce realistic time series and introduce an explore-exploit mechanism to balance efficiency and effectiveness. Experiments on TSFMs demonstrate that OATS consistently outperforms regular training and yields substantial performance gains over static data augmentation baselines across six validation datasets and two TSFM architectures. The code is available at the link https://github.com/microsoft/TimeCraft.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

What's a Credit Worth? A Market Framework for Attribution-Aware Compensation in Generative Music

Advances in generative AI are rapidly increasing the quality and commercial value of generated music, and this progress depends on large catalogs of creators' recordings. This raises a central question for platform design: how should creators be compensated when their work is used to train generative AI models that in turn produce commercial outputs? We develop a framework for fairly compensating creators in generative-music markets, where each creator's payment depends on a data-attribution score estimating their contribution to model outputs. Compared to past compensation frameworks, our framework has two unique considerations: (1) attribution is traced to entire creator catalogs, not individual songs, and (2) the informativeness (signal-to-noise ratio) of the attribution score is an input to the payment mechanism. The framework yields a closed-form payment rule per creator and measures the welfare cost of inaccurate attribution for both creators and the platform. Whether the welfare-optimal contract is royalty-based or takes the form of fixed-fee licensing depends on how informative attribution is for that creator's catalog. We show that better attribution translates directly into welfare gains for both creators and the platform, yet under multi-platform competition a platform only captures gains from attribution improvements when its signal becomes the most precise in the market. To ground our framework in empirical behavior, we train acoustic and symbolic music generation models and measure the informativeness of scalable attribution techniques against a leave-one-catalog-out ground truth. Our experiments reveal that noisy attribution signals push payment toward fixed-fee licensing and diminish welfare for both creators and the platform, providing an economic motivation for further research on improved attribution.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Who Gets Credit or Blame? Attributing Accountability in Modern AI Systems

Modern AI systems are typically developed through multiple stages-pretraining, fine-tuning rounds, and subsequent adaptation or alignment, where each stage builds on the previous ones and updates the model in distinct ways. This raises a critical question of accountability: when a deployed model succeeds or fails, which stage is responsible, and to what extent? We pose the accountability attribution problem for tracing model behavior back to specific stages of the model development process. To address this challenge, we propose a general framework that answers counterfactual questions about stage effects: how would the model's behavior have changed if the updates from a particular stage had not occurred? Within this framework, we introduce estimators that efficiently quantify stage effects without retraining the model, accounting for both the data and key aspects of model optimization dynamics, including learning rate schedules, momentum, and weight decay. We demonstrate that our approach successfully quantifies the accountability of each stage to the model's behavior. Based on the attribution results, our method can identify and remove spurious correlations learned during image classification and text toxicity detection tasks that were developed across multiple stages. Our approach provides a practical tool for model analysis and represents a significant step toward more accountable AI development.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

How Faithful Is Trajectory-Based Data Attribution? Error Sources, Remedies, and Practical Guidelines

Trajectory-based data attribution methods estimate the influence of training samples on model predictions by unrolling the training trajectory. They are widely used in applications such as data selection, data valuation, and model diagnosis, but there is a lack of comprehensive error analysis of these methods, raising concerns about method faithfulness and hindering reliable deployment. In this work, we provide the first systematic analysis of error sources in trajectory-based data attribution, together with concrete remedies to mitigate them and practical guidelines for downstream use. We organize the total error into three categories, config-level, algorithm-level, and system-level. We make three contributions. First, we identify optimizer mismatch as the dominant config-level error: existing methods derive their attribution under the assumption of SGD, even for models trained with the modern de facto optimizer AdamW. We propose AdamW-influence to fully account for AdamW's optimization dynamics, yielding improvements from 10% to over 300% in Spearman correlation between estimated and ground-truth influence across four settings spanning MLP, CNN, GPT-2, and Llama 3.2-1B. Second, we isolate the remaining algorithm-level error arising from the first-order Taylor approximation, identify the learning rate and trajectory length as factors governing the error magnitude, and derive a closed-form error proxy that can be evaluated along the original trajectory without retraining. Third, we translate these insights into practical guidelines for data selection by unifying offline and online strategies under a K-step look-ahead framework. Under this framework, online selection with a short horizon often matches or exceeds offline, and the optimal horizon can be tuned jointly with the learning rate. Together, these results turn the framework into an actionable selection recipe for practitioners.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Toward an Engineering of Science: Rebalancing Generation and Verification in the Age of AI

AI systems can now cheaply generate plausible scientific artifacts such as papers, reviews, and surveys. This creates a risk of \emph{epistemic pollution} in our scientific systems, where unreliable but plausible-looking artifacts can accumulate faster than the system can filter them out. The problem is structural: the epistemic infrastructure of science was calibrated to a world where producing a plausible artifact required substantial expertise, labor, and time, so generation cost itself served as a rough filter; AI weakens that filter without comparably lowering verification cost. We argue that \textbf{AI-era science should treat this as an engineering problem: redesigning epistemic infrastructure to rebalance the costs of generation and verification}. The current paper-centered system makes verification expensive: papers compress long-context scientific logic into prose, forcing reviewers, human or AI, to reconstruct underlying argument structure before they can evaluate it. As one step in this direction, we propose \textbf{blueprints} as preliminary epistemic infrastructure: structured, decomposed research artifacts that represent claims, evidence, assumptions, and definitions as typed graph components. Blueprints are designed to trade an upfront generation cost for cheaper, more local, more distributed verification downstream. We have instantiated the proposal in a proof-of-concept prototype.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Dr. Post-Training: A Data Regularization Perspective on LLM Post-Training

Data selection methods address a critical challenge in LLM post-training: effectively leveraging scarce, high-fidelity target data alongside abundant but imperfectly aligned general training data. In this work, we move beyond the data-selection framing and introduce Dr. Post-Training (Data-Regularized Post-Training), a novel framework that reconceptualizes general training data as a data-induced regularizer that prevents overfitting to the scarce target objective, rather than serving as a pool for selection. Specifically, our framework proposes that at each training step, construct a feasible set of model update directions using the general training data, and project the model update direction specified by the scarce target data onto that feasible set. Standard training and existing data selection methods arise as special cases with different choices of the data-induced regularizer, and these methods correspond to different points on a bias--variance spectrum with different regularization strength. Building on this view, we propose a family of methods offering a richer design space and more flexible bias--variance tradeoffs. For practical LLM-scale use, we introduce careful system optimizations that realize these methods with minimal overhead. Extensive experiments across SFT, RLHF, and RLVR show that our methods consistently outperform state-of-the-art data selection baselines, and system benchmarks confirm their efficiency.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

A Unified Theory of Random Projection for Influence Functions

Influence functions and related data attribution scores take the form of $g^{\top}F^{-1}g^{\prime}$, where $F\succeq 0$ is a curvature operator. In modern overparametrized models, forming or inverting $F\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ is prohibitive, motivating scalable influence computation via random projection with a sketch $P \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$. This practice is commonly justified via the Johnson--Lindenstrauss (JL) lemma, which ensures approximate preservation of Euclidean geometry for a fixed dataset. However, JL does not address how sketching behaves under inversion. Furthermore, there is no existing theory that explains how sketching interacts with other widely-used techniques, such as ridge regularization and structured curvature approximations. We develop a unified theory characterizing when projection provably preserves influence functions. When $g,g^{\prime}\in\text{range}(F)$, we show that: 1) Unregularized projection: exact preservation holds iff $P$ is injective on $\text{range}(F)$, which necessitates $m\geq \text{rank}(F)$; 2) Regularized projection: ridge regularization fundamentally alters the sketching barrier, with approximation guarantees governed by the effective dimension of $F$ at the regularization scale; 3) Factorized influence: for Kronecker-factored curvatures $F=A\otimes E$, the guarantees continue to hold for decoupled sketches $P=P_A\otimes P_E$, even though such sketches exhibit row correlations that violate i.i.d. assumptions. Beyond this range-restricted setting, we analyze out-of-range test gradients and quantify a leakage term that arises when test gradients have components in $\ker(F)$. This yields guarantees for influence queries on general test points. Overall, this work develops a novel theory that characterizes when projection provably preserves influence and provides principled guidance for choosing the sketch size in practice.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Your Reasoning Benchmark May Not Test Reasoning: Revealing Perception Bottleneck in Abstract Reasoning Benchmarks

Reasoning benchmarks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) and ARC-AGI are widely used to assess progress in artificial intelligence and are often interpreted as probes of core, so-called ``fluid'' reasoning abilities. Despite their apparent simplicity for humans, these tasks remain challenging for frontier vision-language models (VLMs), a gap commonly attributed to deficiencies in machine reasoning. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the gap arises primarily from limitations in visual perception rather than from shortcomings in inductive reasoning. To verify this hypothesis, we introduce a two-stage experimental pipeline that explicitly separates perception and reasoning. In the perception stage, each image is independently converted into a natural-language description, while in the reasoning stage a model induces and applies rules using these descriptions. This design prevents leakage of cross-image inductive signals and isolates reasoning from perception bottlenecks. Across three ARC-style datasets, Mini-ARC, ACRE, and Bongard-LOGO, we show that the perception capability is the dominant factor underlying the observed performance gap by comparing the two-stage pipeline with against standard end-to-end one-stage evaluation. Manual inspection of reasoning traces in the VLM outputs further reveals that approximately 80 percent of model failures stem from perception errors. Together, these results demonstrate that ARC-style benchmarks conflate perceptual and reasoning challenges and that observed performance gaps may overstate deficiencies in machine reasoning. Our findings underscore the need for evaluation protocols that disentangle perception from reasoning when assessing progress in machine intelligence.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2025

Computational Copyright: Towards A Royalty Model for Music Generative AI

The rapid rise of generative AI has intensified copyright and economic tensions in creative industries, particularly in music. Current approaches addressing this challenge often focus on preventing infringement or establishing one-time licensing, which fail to provide the sustainable, recurring economic incentives necessary to maintain creative ecosystems. To address this gap, we propose Generative Content ID, a framework for scalable and faithful royalty attribution in music generative AI. Adapting the idea of YouTube's Content ID, it attributes the value of AI-generated music back to the specific training content that causally influenced its generation, a process we term as causal attribution. However, naively quantifying the causal influence requires counterfactually retraining the model on subsets of training data, which is infeasible. We address this challenge using efficient Training Data Attribution (TDA) methods to approximate causal attribution at scale. We further conduct empirical analysis of the framework on public and proprietary datasets. First, we demonstrate that the scalable TDA methods provide a faithful approximation of the "gold-standard" but costly retraining-based causal attribution, showing the feasibility of the proposed royalty framework. Second, we investigate the relationship between the perceived similarity employed by legal practices and our causal attribution reflecting the true AI training mechanics. We find that while perceived similarity can capture the most influential samples, it fails to account for the broader data contribution that drives model utility, suggesting similarity-based legal proxies are ill-suited for royalty distribution. Overall, this work provides a principled and operational foundation for royalty-based economic governance of music generative AI.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2025

GraSS: Scalable Data Attribution with Gradient Sparsification and Sparse Projection

Gradient-based data attribution methods, such as influence functions, are critical for understanding the impact of individual training samples without requiring repeated model retraining. However, their scalability is often limited by the high computational and memory costs associated with per-sample gradient computation. In this work, we propose GraSS, a novel gradient compression algorithm and its variants FactGraSS for linear layers specifically, that explicitly leverage the inherent sparsity of per-sample gradients to achieve sub-linear space and time complexity. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, achieving substantial speedups while preserving data influence fidelity. In particular, FactGraSS achieves up to 165% faster throughput on billion-scale models compared to the previous state-of-the-art baselines. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/TRAIS-Lab/GraSS.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2025

DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models

Data attribution methods quantify the influence of training data on model outputs and are becoming increasingly relevant for a wide range of LLM research and applications, including dataset curation, model interpretability, data valuation. However, there remain critical gaps in systematic LLM-centric evaluation of data attribution methods. To this end, we introduce DATE-LM (Data Attribution Evaluation in Language Models), a unified benchmark for evaluating data attribution methods through real-world LLM applications. DATE-LM measures attribution quality through three key tasks -- training data selection, toxicity/bias filtering, and factual attribution. Our benchmark is designed for ease of use, enabling researchers to configure and run large-scale evaluations across diverse tasks and LLM architectures. Furthermore, we use DATE-LM to conduct a large-scale evaluation of existing data attribution methods. Our findings show that no single method dominates across all tasks, data attribution methods have trade-offs with simpler baselines, and method performance is sensitive to task-specific evaluation design. Finally, we release a public leaderboard for quick comparison of methods and to facilitate community engagement, with the motivation that DATE-LM can serve as a foundation for future data attribution research in LLMs.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2025

Taming Hyperparameter Sensitivity in Data Attribution: Practical Selection Without Costly Retraining

Data attribution methods, which quantify the influence of individual training data points on a machine learning model, have gained increasing popularity in data-centric applications in modern AI. Despite a recent surge of new methods developed in this space, the impact of hyperparameter tuning in these methods remains under-explored. In this work, we present the first large-scale empirical study to understand the hyperparameter sensitivity of common data attribution methods. Our results show that most methods are indeed sensitive to certain key hyperparameters. However, unlike typical machine learning algorithms -- whose hyperparameters can be tuned using computationally-cheap validation metrics -- evaluating data attribution performance often requires retraining models on subsets of training data, making such metrics prohibitively costly for hyperparameter tuning. This poses a critical open challenge for the practical application of data attribution methods. To address this challenge, we advocate for better theoretical understandings of hyperparameter behavior to inform efficient tuning strategies. As a case study, we provide a theoretical analysis of the regularization term that is critical in many variants of influence function methods. Building on this analysis, we propose a lightweight procedure for selecting the regularization value without model retraining, and validate its effectiveness across a range of standard data attribution benchmarks. Overall, our study identifies a fundamental yet overlooked challenge in the practical application of data attribution, and highlights the importance of careful discussion on hyperparameter selection in future method development.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2025

Detecting and Filtering Unsafe Training Data via Data Attribution with Denoised Representation

Large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to even small amounts of unsafe training data, making effective detection and filtering essential for trustworthy model development. Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) detection approaches primarily rely on moderation classifiers, which require significant computation overhead for training and are limited to predefined taxonomies. In this work, we explore data attribution approaches that measure the similarity between individual training samples and a small set of unsafe target examples, based on data representations such as hidden states or gradients. We identify a key limitation in existing methods: unsafe target texts contain both critical tokens that make them unsafe and neutral tokens (e.g., stop words or benign facts) that are necessary to form fluent language, and the latter of which makes the overall representations ``noisy'' for the purpose of detecting unsafe training data. To address this challenge, we propose Denoised Representation Attribution (DRA), a novel representation-based data attribution approach that denoises training and target representations for unsafe data detection. Across tasks of filtering jailbreaks and detecting gender bias, the proposed approach leads to significant improvement for data attribution methods, outperforming SOTA methods that are mostly based on moderation classifiers.

cs.LG↗