The Fault in Our Data Stars: Studying Mitigation Techniques against Faulty Training Data in Machine Learning Applications
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
Machine learning (ML) has been adopted in many safety-critical applications like automated driving and medical diagnosis. Incorrect decisions by ML models can lead to catastrophic consequences, such as vehicle crashes and inappropriate medical procedures, thereby endangering our lives. The correct behaviour of a ML model is contingent upon the availability of well-labelled training data. However, obtaining large and high-quality training datasets for safety-critical applications is difficult, often resulting in the use of faulty training data.We compare the efficacy of five different error mitigation techniques, derived from a survey of more than 200 related articles, which are designed to tolerate noisy/faulty training data. We experimentally find that the error mitigation capabilities of these techniques vary across datasets, ML models, and different kinds of faults. We further find that ensemble learning offers the highest resilience among all the techniques across different configurations, followed by label smoothing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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