How I stopped worrying about training data bugs and started complaining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing awareness of the gap between machine learning research and production. The research community has largely focused on developing a model that performs well on a validation set, but the production environment needs to make sure the model also performs well in a downstream application. The latter is more challenging because the test/inference-time data used in the application could be quite different from the training data. To address this challenge, we advocate for "complaint-driven" data debugging, which allows the user to complain about the unexpected behaviors of the model in the downstream application, and proposes interventions for training data errors that likely led to the complaints. This new debugging paradigm helps solve a range of training data quality problems such as labeling error, fairness, and data drift. We present our long-term vision, highlight achieved milestones, and outline a research roadmap including a number of open problems.
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 | 0.026 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
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".