Computing Shapley Values for Dynamic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data valuation is a core function in data markets and cooperative data sharing.Shapley valueis a widely used approach to fairly measure the contribution of data points towards a collective utility (e.g., a machine learning model trained from the data). However, computing Shapley values is known to be in general #P-hard due to the exponential utility evaluation. Furthermore, the presence of dynamic data poses additional challenges due to the prohibitively expensive cost of recomputing from scratch. In this paper, we study the problem ofDynamic Shapley Value Computation, which focuses on updating Shapley values when dynamically adding or deleting data points. For adding, to prune redundant computation of overlapping model utilities, we propose the pivot-based algorithm that can reduce half the computation time in expectation. We also propose delta-based algorithms to capture Shapley value changes, which require only a smaller sample size to converge. For deleting, we present the YN-NN algorithm that derives the new Shapley values from precomputed utilities efficiently. Based on Shapley value changes, we give another version of the delta-based algorithm for deleting data points. Besides, we propose heuristic algorithms that draw on experimental observations for addition, deletion, and hybrid scenarios. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of our proposed algorithms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".