Optimizing Data Augmentation through Bayesian Model Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data Augmentation (DA) has become an essential tool to improve robustness and generalization of modern machine learning. However, when deciding on DA strategies it is critical to choose parameters carefully, and this can be a daunting task which is traditionally left to trial-and-error or expensive optimization based on validation performance. In this paper, we counter these limitations by proposing a novel framework for optimizing DA. In particular, we take a probabilistic view of DA, which leads to the interpretation of augmentation parameters as model (hyper)-parameters, and the optimization of the marginal likelihood with respect to these parameters as a Bayesian model selection problem. Due to its intractability, we derive a tractable ELBO, which allows us to optimize augmentation parameters jointly with model parameters. We provide extensive theoretical results on variational approximation quality, generalization guarantees, invariance properties, and connections to empirical Bayes. Through experiments on computer vision and NLP tasks, we show that our approach improves calibration and yields robust performance over fixed or no augmentation. Our work provides a rigorous foundation for optimizing DA through Bayesian principles with significant potential for robust machine learning.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it