MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386204668 · doi:10.1145/3603719.3603725

InfoMoD: Information-theoretic Model Diagnostics

2023· article· en· W4386204668 on OpenAlexaff
Armin Esmaeilzadeh, Lukasz Golab, Kazem Taghva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceDebuggingData modelingData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Validating and debugging machine learning models is done by testing them on unseen data. Analyzing model performance on various subsets of the data is critical for fairness, trust, bias detection and explainablility. In this paper, we describe a new way to do this. Our solution, called InfoMoD, applies recent work in information-theoretic data summarization to the problem of model diagnostics. Using real-life datasets, we show how InfoMod concisely describes how a model performs across different subsets of the data and produces expected performance indicators for individual test instances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207