e1ebda145808ca45774993fb67314894-Supplemental-Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.pdf

ARelated Work1 Data Attribution Evaluation: Given recent developments in data attribution methods for LLMs,2 past works in evaluating these methods fall two major categories: leave-out-out and task-based3 evaluation. Leave-one-out evaluation measures the correlation between the data attribution method4 scores and model-retraining, which can also be approximated using linear datamodeling score [26].5 In task-based evaluation, the data attribution method is evaluated based on its application towards6 downstream task, such as noisy label detection, counterfactual evaluation [3, 13].7 Training Data Selection: Selecting high-quality training data selection is important for efficient8 learning in LLMs. Common approaches to data selection relies on heuristic filtering, such as de-9 duplication and lexicon-filtering, [34], or semantic rating [48, 52]. Recent works have applied data10 attribution methods towards data selection in LLMs in both pre-training [56, 59, 15] and post-training11 [45, 53, 31]. These data attribution methods are dynamic and model-aware - increasing the frequency12 of performing selection is one way to take greater account for group influence, where online selection13 at each training step is most fine-grained [49].14 Toxicity/Bias Detection: Detecting and mitigating toxic/biased LLMs outputs is a crucial for safe15 deployment in real-word settings. Existing methods for detecting toxicity/bias in LLMs commonly16 include online API tools 1 [37] or LLM-classifiers [58, 21, 16, 27]. Factual Attribution: Identifying training examples which causes LLMs to generate specific factual20 statements is an important application of data attribution as AI tools are becoming increasingly21 common. Apart from baseline retrieval methods that leverage lexical/semantic similarity like BM2522 [48], Rep Sim [44] and Gecko [33], recent works have explored the use of data attribution in tracing23 factual knowledge in both pre-training[6] and post-training [42, 2].24 We provide below descriptions to the data attribution methods and non-attribution baselines evaluated26 in this work. Note that in our work, we consider non-attribution baselines as methods that do not27 estimate the impact of training samples on models, as detailed in [19].28 Rep-Sim [44]: (Non-attribution baseline) Rep-Sim computes the cosine similarity between last29 token last layer hidden states of training and reference examples. It is more efficient compared with30 gradient-based data attribution methods. BM25 [48]: (Non-attribution baseline) BM25 is a classic information retrieval algorithm that ranks33 training samples by lexical overlap with the query. It is significantly more efficient compared with34 gradient-based data attribution methods.35