The Data Addition Dilemma

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04154v1
• Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 01:42:31 GMT
• Title: The Data Addition Dilemma
• Authors: Judy Hanwen Shen, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Irene Y. Chen,
• Abstract summary: In many machine learning for healthcare tasks, standard datasets are constructed by amassing data across many, often fundamentally dissimilar, sources. But when does adding more data help, and when does it hinder progress on desired model outcomes in real-world settings? We identify this situation as the textitData Addition Dilemma, demonstrating that adding training data in this multi-source scaling context can at times result in reduced overall accuracy, uncertain fairness outcomes, and reduced worst-subgroup performance.
• Score: 4.869513274920574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In many machine learning for healthcare tasks, standard datasets are constructed by amassing data across many, often fundamentally dissimilar, sources. But when does adding more data help, and when does it hinder progress on desired model outcomes in real-world settings? We identify this situation as the \textit{Data Addition Dilemma}, demonstrating that adding training data in this multi-source scaling context can at times result in reduced overall accuracy, uncertain fairness outcomes, and reduced worst-subgroup performance. We find that this possibly arises from an empirically observed trade-off between model performance improvements due to data scaling and model deterioration from distribution shift. We thus establish baseline strategies for navigating this dilemma, introducing distribution shift heuristics to guide decision-making on which data sources to add in data scaling, in order to yield the expected model performance improvements. We conclude with a discussion of the required considerations for data collection and suggestions for studying data composition and scale in the age of increasingly larger models.

Related papers

• Data Pruning in Generative Diffusion Models [2.0111637969968]
  Generative models aim to estimate the underlying distribution of the data, so presumably they should benefit from larger datasets. We show that eliminating redundant or noisy data in large datasets is beneficial particularly when done strategically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T14:13:25Z)
• DiverGen: Improving Instance Segmentation by Learning Wider Data Distribution with More Diverse Generative Data [48.31817189858086]
  We argue that generative data can expand the data distribution that the model can learn, thus mitigating overfitting. We find that DiverGen significantly outperforms the strong model X-Paste, achieving +1.1 box AP and +1.1 mask AP across all categories, and +1.9 box AP and +2.5 mask AP for rare categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-16T15:30:18Z)
• Distribution-Aware Data Expansion with Diffusion Models [55.979857976023695]
  We propose DistDiff, a training-free data expansion framework based on the distribution-aware diffusion model. DistDiff consistently enhances accuracy across a diverse range of datasets compared to models trained solely on original data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T14:07:53Z)
• Towards Continually Learning Application Performance Models [1.2278517240988065]
  Machine learning-based performance models are increasingly being used to build critical job scheduling and application optimization decisions. Traditionally, these models assume that data distribution does not change as more samples are collected over time. We develop continually learning performance models that account for the distribution drift, alleviate catastrophic forgetting, and improve generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T20:48:46Z)
• MissDiff: Training Diffusion Models on Tabular Data with Missing Values [29.894691645801597]
  This work presents a unified and principled diffusion-based framework for learning from data with missing values. We first observe that the widely adopted "impute-then-generate" pipeline may lead to a biased learning objective. We prove the proposed method is consistent in learning the score of data distributions, and the proposed training objective serves as an upper bound for the negative likelihood in certain cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-02T03:49:47Z)
• Striving for data-model efficiency: Identifying data externalities on group performance [75.17591306911015]
  Building trustworthy, effective, and responsible machine learning systems hinges on understanding how differences in training data and modeling decisions interact to impact predictive performance. We focus on a particular type of data-model inefficiency, in which adding training data from some sources can actually lower performance evaluated on key sub-groups of the population. Our results indicate that data-efficiency is a key component of both accurate and trustworthy machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T16:48:27Z)
• Adaptive Sampling Strategies to Construct Equitable Training Datasets [0.7036032466145111]
  In domains ranging from computer vision to natural language processing, machine learning models have been shown to exhibit stark disparities. One factor contributing to these performance gaps is a lack of representation in the data the models are trained on. We formalize the problem of creating equitable training datasets, and propose a statistical framework for addressing this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T19:19:30Z)
• On the Efficacy of Adversarial Data Collection for Question Answering: Results from a Large-Scale Randomized Study [65.17429512679695]
  In adversarial data collection (ADC), a human workforce interacts with a model in real time, attempting to produce examples that elicit incorrect predictions. Despite ADC's intuitive appeal, it remains unclear when training on adversarial datasets produces more robust models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T00:48:33Z)
• Time-Series Imputation with Wasserstein Interpolation for Optimal Look-Ahead-Bias and Variance Tradeoff [66.59869239999459]
  In finance, imputation of missing returns may be applied prior to training a portfolio optimization model. There is an inherent trade-off between the look-ahead-bias of using the full data set for imputation and the larger variance in the imputation from using only the training data. We propose a Bayesian posterior consensus distribution which optimally controls the variance and look-ahead-bias trade-off in the imputation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-25T09:05:35Z)
• MAIN: Multihead-Attention Imputation Networks [4.427447378048202]
  We propose a novel mechanism based on multi-head attention which can be applied effortlessly in any model. Our method inductively models patterns of missingness in the input data in order to increase the performance of the downstream task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-10T13:50:02Z)
• Negative Data Augmentation [127.28042046152954]
  We show that negative data augmentation samples provide information on the support of the data distribution. We introduce a new GAN training objective where we use NDA as an additional source of synthetic data for the discriminator. Empirically, models trained with our method achieve improved conditional/unconditional image generation along with improved anomaly detection capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-09T20:28:35Z)

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.