Complaint-driven Training Data Debugging for Query 2.0
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the need for machine learning (ML) increases rapidly across all industry sectors, there is a significant interest among commercial database providers to support "Query 2.0", which integrates model inference into SQL queries. Debugging Query 2.0 is very challenging since an unexpected query result may be caused by the bugs in training data (e.g., wrong labels, corrupted features). In response, we propose Rain, a complaint-driven training data debugging system. Rain allows users to specify complaints over the query's intermediate or final output, and aims to return a minimum set of training examples so that if they were removed, the complaints would be resolved. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study this problem. A naive solution requires retraining an exponential number of ML models. We propose two novel heuristic approaches based on influence functions which both require linear retraining steps. We provide an in-depth analytical and empirical analysis of the two approaches and conduct extensive experiments to evaluate their effectiveness using four real-world datasets. Results show that Rain achieves the highest [email protected] among all the baselines while still returns results interactively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it