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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".