arXiv · Oct 20, 2026
Influence Is the Target-Response Jacobian Times Residuals
By Paul Geertsema, Simon Geertsema
We introduce the target-response Jacobian J = [∂ hat y_i/∂ y_j], which measures how model predictions respond to changes in individual training targets. J complements training-data attribution (TDA) methods, which characterize sensitivity to the weights placed on training observations in the loss rather than to their targets, and can be computed matrix-free at the same cost as influence-based TDA methods. We show that sample-weight influence I and J follow from the same implicit differentiation argument and differ only by a per-example multiplier: for pointwise losses, I = Jdiag(m) exactly at any stationary point with an invertible Hessian. For canonical-link losses (squared error, logistic, Poisson) the multiplier is the training residual, I = Jdiag(r), and softmax cross-entropy obeys a multiclass version. The identity predicts three ways in which influence fails when used in place of J: small residuals shrink its predicted shift towards zero (interpolation collapse), residuals of mixed sign wash out its direction (direction washout), and under softmax cross-entropy it collapses a training point's per-class sensitivities towards its own true class (true-class collapse). We score both operators against refitting with a per-prediction R² across target perturbations, with no rescaling. On tanh networks trained with squared error (Friedman #1) and logistic loss (MAGIC, HIGGS), with N from 2,000 to 10⁶, J reaches R² between 0.99 and 1.00, whereas influence's R² is negative on every dataset. On an MNIST softmax classifier, influence's R² is again negative, while J reaches 0.92. On HIGGS, one row of J, holding all 10⁶ sensitivities of one prediction, takes under 0.2 seconds on an RTX 3090 after a one-time setup of under five minutes, whereas refitting would take 10⁶ refits.