Truthful Dataset Valuation by Pointwise Mutual Information

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18253v1
• Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 15:04:17 GMT
• Title: Truthful Dataset Valuation by Pointwise Mutual Information
• Authors: Shuran Zheng, Yongchan Kwon, Xuan Qi, James Zou,
• Abstract summary: We propose a new data valuation method that provably guarantees the following: data providers always maximize their expected score by truthfully reporting their observed data. Our method, following the paradigm of proper scoring rules, measures the pointwise mutual information (PMI) of the test dataset and the evaluated dataset.
• Score: 28.63827288801458
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A common way to evaluate a dataset in ML involves training a model on this dataset and assessing the model's performance on a test set. However, this approach has two issues: (1) it may incentivize undesirable data manipulation in data marketplaces, as the self-interested data providers seek to modify the dataset to maximize their evaluation scores; (2) it may select datasets that overfit to potentially small test sets. We propose a new data valuation method that provably guarantees the following: data providers always maximize their expected score by truthfully reporting their observed data. Any manipulation of the data, including but not limited to data duplication, adding random data, data removal, or re-weighting data from different groups, cannot increase their expected score. Our method, following the paradigm of proper scoring rules, measures the pointwise mutual information (PMI) of the test dataset and the evaluated dataset. However, computing the PMI of two datasets is challenging. We introduce a novel PMI measuring method that greatly improves tractability within Bayesian machine learning contexts. This is accomplished through a new characterization of PMI that relies solely on the posterior probabilities of the model parameter at an arbitrarily selected value. Finally, we support our theoretical results with simulations and further test the effectiveness of our data valuation method in identifying the top datasets among multiple data providers. Interestingly, our method outperforms the standard approach of selecting datasets based on the trained model's test performance, suggesting that our truthful valuation score can also be more robust to overfitting.

Related papers

• A CLIP-Powered Framework for Robust and Generalizable Data Selection [51.46695086779598]
  Real-world datasets often contain redundant and noisy data, imposing a negative impact on training efficiency and model performance. Data selection has shown promise in identifying the most representative samples from the entire dataset. We propose a novel CLIP-powered data selection framework that leverages multimodal information for more robust and generalizable sample selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T03:00:58Z)
• Data Distribution Valuation [56.71023681599737]
  Existing data valuation methods define a value for a discrete dataset. In many use cases, users are interested in not only the value of the dataset, but that of the distribution from which the dataset was sampled. We propose a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD)-based valuation method which enables theoretically principled and actionable policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T07:56:53Z)
• Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need [52.01920740114261]
  We propose a simple and effective data leakage detection method based on the contents of multiple-choice options. Our method is able to work under black-box conditions without access to model training data or weights. We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 31 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• Personalization of Dataset Retrieval Results using a Metadata-based Data Valuation Method [0.5999777817331317]
  We propose a novel data valuation method for a dataset retrieval use case in Ireland's National mapping agency. By leveraging metadata and a user's preferences, we estimate the personal value of each dataset. We validated the data value-based ranking against the stakeholders' ranking of the datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T11:13:07Z)
• Neural Dynamic Data Valuation [4.286118155737111]
  We propose a novel data valuation method from the perspective of optimal control, named the neural dynamic data valuation (NDDV) Our method has solid theoretical interpretations to accurately identify the data valuation via the sensitivity of the data optimal control state. In addition, we implement a data re-weighting strategy to capture the unique features of data points, ensuring fairness through the interaction between data points and the mean-field states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:39:26Z)
• On the Evaluation and Refinement of Vision-Language Instruction Tuning Datasets [71.54954966652286]
  We try to evaluate the Vision-Language Instruction-Tuning (VLIT) datasets. We build a new dataset, REVO-LION, by collecting samples with higher SQ from each dataset. Remarkably, even with only half of the complete data, the model trained on REVO-LION can achieve the performance comparable to simply adding all VLIT datasets up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T13:01:38Z)
• Data-OOB: Out-of-bag Estimate as a Simple and Efficient Data Value [17.340091573913316]
  We propose Data-OOB, a new data valuation method for a bagging model that utilizes the out-of-bag estimate. Data-OOB takes less than 2.25 hours on a single CPU processor when there are $106$ samples to evaluate and the input dimension is 100. We demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art data valuation methods in identifying mislabeled data and finding a set of helpful (or harmful) data points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T08:03:58Z)
• Investigating Data Variance in Evaluations of Automatic Machine Translation Metrics [58.50754318846996]
  In this paper, we show that the performances of metrics are sensitive to data. The ranking of metrics varies when the evaluation is conducted on different datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-29T18:58:28Z)
• Generating Data to Mitigate Spurious Correlations in Natural Language Inference Datasets [27.562256973255728]
  Natural language processing models often exploit spurious correlations between task-independent features and labels in datasets to perform well only within the distributions they are trained on. We propose to tackle this problem by generating a debiased version of a dataset, which can then be used to train a debiased, off-the-shelf model. Our approach consists of 1) a method for training data generators to generate high-quality, label-consistent data samples; and 2) a filtering mechanism for removing data points that contribute to spurious correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-24T09:08:05Z)
• Data-SUITE: Data-centric identification of in-distribution incongruous examples [81.21462458089142]
  Data-SUITE is a data-centric framework to identify incongruous regions of in-distribution (ID) data. We empirically validate Data-SUITE's performance and coverage guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T18:58:31Z)
• Managing dataset shift by adversarial validation for credit scoring [5.560471251954645]
  The inconsistency between the distribution of training data and the data that actually needs to be predicted is likely to cause poor model performance. We propose a method based on adversarial validation to alleviate the dataset shift problem in credit scoring scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-19T07:07:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.