WeShap: Weak Supervision Source Evaluation with Shapley Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient data annotation stands as a significant bottleneck in training contemporary machine learning models. The Programmatic Weak Supervision (PWS) pipeline presents a solution by utilizing multiple weak supervision sources to automatically label data, thereby expediting the annotation process. Given the varied contributions of these weak supervision sources to the accuracy of PWS, it is imperative to employ a robust and efficient metric for their evaluation. This is crucial not only for understanding the behavior and performance of the PWS pipeline but also for facilitating corrective measures. In this paper, we introduce WeShap values as an evaluation metric. This metric quantifies the average contribution of weak supervision sources within a proxy PWS pipeline, leveraging the theoretical underpinnings of Shapley values. We demonstrate efficient computation of WeShap values using dynamic programming, achieving quadratic computational complexity relative to the number of weak supervision sources. Our experiments demonstrate the versatility of WeShap values across various applications, including the identification of beneficial or detrimental labeling functions, refinement of the PWS pipeline, comprehension of the pipeline's behavior, and scrutinizing specific instances of mislabeled data. Although initially derived from a specific proxy PWS pipeline, we empirically demonstrate the generalizability of WeShap values to other PWS pipeline configurations. Our findings indicate a noteworthy average improvement of 5.0 points in downstream model accuracy through the revision of the PWS pipeline compared to previous state-of-the-art methods, underscoring the efficacy of WeShap values in enhancing data quality for training machine learning models.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".