Reinforced Training Data Selection for Domain Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervised models suffer from the problem of domain shifting where distribution mismatch in the data across domains greatly affect model performance. To solve the problem, training data selection (TDS) has been proven to be a prospective solution for domain adaptation in leveraging appropriate data. However, conventional TDS methods normally requires a predefined threshold which is neither easy to set nor can be applied across tasks, and models are trained separately with the TDS process. To make TDS self-adapted to data and task, and to combine it with model training, in this paper, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) framework that synchronously searches for training instances relevant to the target domain and learns better representations for them. A selection distribution generator (SDG) is designed to perform the selection and is updated according to the rewards computed from the selected data, where a predictor is included in the framework to ensure a taskspecific model can be trained on the selected data and provides feedback to rewards. Experimental results from part-of-speech tagging, dependency parsing, and sentiment analysis, as well as ablation studies, illustrate that the proposed framework is not only effective in data selection and representation, but also generalized to accommodate different NLP tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".