Promises and Pitfalls of Threshold-based Auto-labeling

November 22, 2022 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Neural Information Processing Systems

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Harit Vishwakarma, Heguang Lin, Frederic Sala, Ramya Korlakai Vinayak arXiv ID 2211.12620 Category cs.LG: Machine Learning Cross-listed cs.AI, stat.ML Citations 11 Venue Neural Information Processing Systems Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Creating large-scale high-quality labeled datasets is a major bottleneck in supervised machine learning workflows. Threshold-based auto-labeling (TBAL), where validation data obtained from humans is used to find a confidence threshold above which the data is machine-labeled, reduces reliance on manual annotation. TBAL is emerging as a widely-used solution in practice. Given the long shelf-life and diverse usage of the resulting datasets, understanding when the data obtained by such auto-labeling systems can be relied on is crucial. This is the first work to analyze TBAL systems and derive sample complexity bounds on the amount of human-labeled validation data required for guaranteeing the quality of machine-labeled data. Our results provide two crucial insights. First, reasonable chunks of unlabeled data can be automatically and accurately labeled by seemingly bad models. Second, a hidden downside of TBAL systems is potentially prohibitive validation data usage. Together, these insights describe the promise and pitfalls of using such systems. We validate our theoretical guarantees with extensive experiments on synthetic and real datasets.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted