Adversarial Word Dilution as Text Data Augmentation in Low-Resource Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data augmentation is widely used in text classification, especially in the low-resource regime where a few examples for each class are available during training. Despite the success, generating data augmentations as hard positive examples that may increase their effectiveness is under-explored. This paper proposes an Adversarial Word Dilution (AWD) method that can generate hard positive examples as text data augmentations to train the low-resource text classification model efficiently. Our idea of augmenting the text data is to dilute the embedding of strong positive words by weighted mixing with unknown-word embedding, making the augmented inputs hard to be recognized as positive by the classification model. We adversarially learn the dilution weights through a constrained min-max optimization process with the guidance of the labels. Empirical studies on three benchmark datasets show that AWD can generate more effective data augmentations and outperform the state-of-the-art text data augmentation methods. The additional analysis demonstrates that the data augmentations generated by AWD are interpretable and can flexibly extend to new examples without further training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".