Bibliographic record
Abstract
As large and powerful neural language models are developed, researchers have been increasingly interested in developing diagnostic tools to probe them. There are many papers with conclusions of the form ``observation is found in model '', using their own datasets with varying sizes. Larger probing datasets bring more reliability, but are also expensive to collect. There is yet to be a quantitative method for estimating reasonable probing dataset sizes. We tackle this omission in the context of comparing two probing configurations: after we have collected a small dataset from a pilot study, how many additional data samples are sufficient to distinguish two different configurations? We present a novel method to estimate the required number of data samples in such experiments and, across several case studies, we verify that our estimations have sufficient statistical power. Our framework helps to systematically construct probing datasets to diagnose neural NLP 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 | 0.124 | 0.606 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".