Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Detecting labeling bias using influence functions

Frida Jørgensen, Nina Weng, Siavash BigdeliPublished Feb 22, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

Labeling bias arises during data collection due to resource limitations or unconscious bias, leading to unequal label error rates across subgroups or misrepresentation of subgroup prevalence. Most fairness constraints assume training labels reflect the true distribution, rendering them ineffective when labeling bias is present; leaving a challenging question, that \textit{how can we detect such labeling bias?} In this work, we investigate whether influence functions can be used to detect labeling bias. Influence functions estimate how much each training sample affects a model's predictions by leveraging the gradient and Hessian of the loss function -- when labeling errors occur, influence functions can identify wrongly labeled samples in the training set, revealing the underlying failure mode. We develop a sample valuation pipeline and test it first on the MNIST dataset, then scaled to the more complex CheXpert medical imaging dataset. To examine label noise, we introduced controlled errors by flipping 20\% of the labels for one class in the dataset. Using a diagonal Hessian approximation, we demonstrated promising results, successfully detecting nearly 90\% of mislabeled samples in MNIST. On CheXpert, mislabeled samples consistently exhibit higher influence scores. These results highlight the potential of influence functions for identifying label errors.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Labeling bias arises during data collection due to resource limitations or unconscious bias, leading to unequal label error rates across subgroups or misrepresentation of subgroup prevalence.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 23, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX