Dataset Difficulty and the Role of Inductive Bias

Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examples within a dataset. These methods, which we call "example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.

Comprehensive Benchmarking of Entropy and Margin Based Scoring Metrics for Data Selection

While data selection methods have been studied extensively in active learning, data pruning, and data augmentation settings, there is little evidence for the efficacy of these methods in industry scale settings, particularly in low-resource languages. Our work presents ways of assessing prospective training examples in those settings for their "usefulness" or "difficulty". We also demonstrate how these measures can be used in selecting important examples for training supervised machine learning models. We primarily experiment with entropy and Error L2-Norm (EL2N) scores. We use these metrics to curate high quality datasets from a large pool of \textit{Weak Signal Labeled} data, which assigns no-defect high confidence hypotheses during inference as ground truth labels. We then conduct training data augmentation experiments using these de-identified datasets and demonstrate that score-based selection can result in a 2% decrease in semantic error rate and 4%-7% decrease in domain classification error rate when compared to the baseline technique of random selection.

Influence Scores at Scale for Efficient Language Data Sampling

Modern ML systems ingest data aggregated from diverse sources, such as synthetic, human-annotated, and live customer traffic. Understanding \textit{which} examples are important to the performance of a learning algorithm is crucial for efficient model training. Recently, a growing body of literature has given rise to various "influence scores," which use training artifacts such as model confidence or checkpointed gradients to identify important subsets of data. However, these methods have primarily been developed in computer vision settings, and it remains unclear how well they generalize to language-based tasks using pretrained models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of influence scores in language classification tasks. We evaluate a diverse subset of these scores on the SNLI dataset by quantifying accuracy changes in response to pruning training data through random and influence-score-based sampling. We then stress-test one of the scores -- "variance of gradients" (VoG) from Agarwal et al. (2022) -- in an NLU model stack that was exposed to dynamic user speech patterns in a voice assistant type of setting. Our experiments demonstrate that in many cases, encoder-based language models can be finetuned on roughly 50% of the original data without degradation in performance metrics. Along the way, we summarize lessons learned from applying out-of-the-box implementations of influence scores, quantify the effects of noisy and class-imbalanced data, and offer recommendations on score-based sampling for better accuracy and training efficiency.