TLXML: Task-Level Explanation of Meta-Learning via Influence Functions
Yoshihiro Mitsuka, Shadan Golestan, Zahin Sufiyan, Shotaro Miwa, Osmar R. Zaiane

TL;DR
TLXML introduces a scalable influence function-based framework for providing task-level explanations in meta-learning, enhancing interpretability and trustworthiness of models by identifying the impact of individual training tasks.
Contribution
It extends influence functions to bi-level optimization in meta-learning, enabling task-level explanations and a scalable approximation method.
Findings
Effectively ranks training tasks by influence on performance
Provides concise, intuitive explanations aligned with user abstraction
Reduces computational complexity significantly
Abstract
Meta-learning enables models to rapidly adapt to new tasks by leveraging prior experience, but its adaptation mechanisms remain opaque, especially regarding how past training tasks influence future predictions. We introduce TLXML (Task-Level eXplanation of Meta-Learning), a novel framework that extends influence functions to meta-learning settings, enabling task-level explanations of adaptation and inference. By reformulating influence functions for bi-level optimization, TLXML quantifies the contribution of each meta-training task to the adapted model's behaviour. To ensure scalability, we propose a Gauss-Newton-based approximation that significantly reduces computational complexity from to , where p and q denote model and meta parameters, respectively. Results demonstrate that TLXML effectively ranks training tasks by their influence on downstream performance,…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
The strength of this paper lies in the novel formulation of influence functions for meta-learning. As highlighted above, the authors were able to extend the influence functions framework to the meta-learning setting by building upon the well-known influence functions objectives. The Task-Level Explanations framework (or TLXML) that the authors propose provides task-based explanations that align with users’ abstraction levels. To scale their approach to complex models, the authors introduce a tra
Although the mathematical framing of the problem is sound, the evaluation seems relatively weak. For instance, from the evaluation carried out by the authors, it is quite difficult to pinpoint which specific class(es) of instances among the set of fast-adapted tasks were influential in the decision rendered by the model on any given test instance from the test set of meta tasks. It would be indeed very helpful if the authors could rank by influence the classes that influenced the model in the de
- The paper extends influence functions to task-level explanations in meta-learning, which has not been widely explored. - The authors propose approximating the Hessian matrix with the Gauss-Newton matrix, which makes sense and reduces computation cost. - By tackling the under-explored area of explainability in meta-learning, the paper can contribute to interpretable meta-learning.
1. Complex and Unclear Motivation: The motivation is presented in a dense, complex manner with terms like “local explanations” and “moment of inference” introduced without sufficient explanation. Phrases like “dire consequences” are vague and could be more specific. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the motivation and connect the proposed method to its practical benefits. 2. Lack of Comparison with a Simple Task Embedding Baseline: The paper does not compare its proposed influen
The paper is very well written and easy to follow. The meta-learning motivation, as well as literature analysis is (up to my knowledge) well done - I could not find any works that propose to use influence functions for meta learning. Furthermore, the problem is well motivated and it is clear why would a framework like TLXML benefit the meta-learning community. The problems that arise (e.g., computational complexity) are well formulated, through rigorous mathematical expressions. The authors prop
I find the approach novel, well-motivated, and well theoretically situated. However, I find the experimental results unconvincing - I hope that the authors might be able to prove me wrong and improve them. In the beginning of the paper, in Figure 1, the authors give a very nice key insight into TLXML, motivate it well, and leave the reader wanting to know how they solve this problem: calculating the influence on the model's behavior by providing which of the previously learned tasks are strongl
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling
MethodsModel-Agnostic Meta-Learning
