Portrait de Nikhil Anand n'est pas disponible

Nikhil Anand

Alumni

Publications

Dataset Difficulty and the Role of Inductive Bias
Devin Kwok
Nikhil Anand
Jonathan Frankle
Gintare Karolina Dziugaite
David Rolnick
Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examp… (voir plus)les within a dataset. These methods, which we call"example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.
2024-01-03
ArXiv (prépublication)
doi.org
arxiv.org
Dataset Difficulty and the Role of Inductive Bias
Devin Kwok
Nikhil Anand
Jonathan Frankle
Gintare Karolina Dziugaite
David Rolnick
Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examp… (voir plus)les within a dataset. These methods, which we call"example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.
2024-01-03
ArXiv (prépublication)
doi.org
arxiv.org