Feeding What You Need by Understanding What You Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) reveals the ability to understand a given text passage and answer questions based on it. Existing research works in MRC rely heavily on large-size models and corpus to improve the performance evaluated by metrics such as Exact Match (EM) and F1. However, such a paradigm lacks sufficient interpretation to model capability and can not efficiently train a model with a large corpus. In this paper, we argue that a deep understanding of model capabilities and data properties can help us feed a model with appropriate training data based on its learning status. Specifically, we design an MRC capability assessment framework that assesses model capabilities in an explainable and multi-dimensional manner. Based on it, we further uncover and disentangle the connections between various data properties and model performance. Finally, to verify the effectiveness of the proposed MRC capability assessment framework, we incorporate it into a curriculum learning pipeline and devise a Capability Boundary Breakthrough Curriculum (CBBC) strategy, which performs a model capability-based training to maximize the data value and improve training efficiency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly improves performance, achieving up to an 11.22% / 8.71% improvement of EM / F1 on MRC tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".