Search

Weak Supervision (WS) techniques allow users to efficiently create large training datasets by programmatically labeling data with heuristic sources of supervision. While the success of WS relies heavily on the provided labeling heuristics, the process of how these heuristics are created in practice has remained under-explored. In this work, we formalize the development process of labeling heuristics as an interactive procedure, built around the existing workflow where users draw ideas from a selected set of development data for designing the heuristic sources. With the formalism, we study two core problems of how to strategically select the development data to guide users in efficiently creating informative heuristics, and how to exploit the information within the development process to contextualize and better learn from the resultant heuristics. Building upon two novel methodologies that effectively tackle the respective problems considered, we present Nemo, an end-to-end interactive system that improves the overall productivity of WS learning pipeline by an average 20% (and up to 47% in one task) compared to the prevailing WS approach., Comment: To appear in PVLDB 2022

Deploying large language models (LLMs) is challenging because they are memory inefficient and compute-intensive for practical applications. In reaction, researchers train smaller task-specific models by either finetuning with human labels or distilling using LLM-generated labels. However, finetuning and distillation require large amounts of training data to achieve comparable performance to LLMs. We introduce Distilling step-by-step, a new mechanism that (a) trains smaller models that outperform LLMs, and (b) achieves so by leveraging less training data needed by finetuning or distillation. Our method extracts LLM rationales as additional supervision for training small models within a multi-task framework. We present three findings across 4 NLP benchmarks: First, compared to both finetuning and distillation, our mechanism achieves better performance with much fewer labeled/unlabeled training examples. Second, compared to few-shot prompted LLMs, we achieve better performance using substantially smaller model sizes. Third, we reduce both the model size and the amount of data required to outperform LLMs; our finetuned 770M T5 model outperforms the few-shot prompted 540B PaLM model using only 80% of available data on a benchmark, whereas standard finetuning the same T5 model struggles to match even by using 100% of the dataset. We release the code at: https://github.com/google-research/distilling-step-by-step ., Accepted to Findings of ACL 2023

Programmatic Weak Supervision (PWS) aggregates the source votes of multiple weak supervision sources into probabilistic training labels, which are in turn used to train an end model. With its increasing popularity, it is critical to have some tool for users to understand the influence of each component (e.g., the source vote or training data) in the pipeline and interpret the end model behavior. To achieve this, we build on Influence Function (IF) and propose source-aware IF, which leverages the generation process of the probabilistic labels to decompose the end model's training objective and then calculate the influence associated with each (data, source, class) tuple. These primitive influence score can then be used to estimate the influence of individual component of PWS, such as source vote, supervision source, and training data. On datasets of diverse domains, we demonstrate multiple use cases: (1) interpreting incorrect predictions from multiple angles that reveals insights for debugging the PWS pipeline, (2) identifying mislabeling of sources with a gain of 9%-37% over baselines, and (3) improving the end model's generalization performance by removing harmful components in the training objective (13%-24% better than ordinary IF)., 21 pages

Labeling training data has become one of the major roadblocks to using machine learning. Among various weak supervision paradigms, programmatic weak supervision (PWS) has achieved remarkable success in easing the manual labeling bottleneck by programmatically synthesizing training labels from multiple potentially noisy supervision sources. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of recent advances in PWS. In particular, we give a brief introduction of the PWS learning paradigm, and review representative approaches for each component within PWS's learning workflow. In addition, we discuss complementary learning paradigms for tackling limited labeled data scenarios and how these related approaches can be used in conjunction with PWS. Finally, we identify several critical challenges that remain under-explored in the area to hopefully inspire future research directions in the field., Comment: 8 pages

The goal of multi-label learning (MLL) is to associate a given instance with its relevant labels from a set of concepts. Previous works of MLL mainly focused on the setting where the concept set is assumed to be fixed, while many real-world applications require introducing new concepts into the set to meet new demands. One common need is to refine the original coarse concepts and split them into finer-grained ones, where the refinement process typically begins with limited labeled data for the finer-grained concepts. To address the need, we formalize the problem into a special weakly supervised MLL problem to not only learn the fine-grained concepts efficiently but also allow interactive queries to strategically collect more informative annotations to further improve the classifier. The key idea within our approach is to learn to assign pseudo-labels to the unlabeled entries, and in turn leverage the pseudo-labels to train the underlying classifier and to inform a better query strategy. Experimental results demonstrate that our pseudo-label approach is able to accurately recover the missing ground truth, boosting the prediction performance significantly over the baseline methods and facilitating a competitive active learning strategy., Comment: A preliminary version appeared in the Workshop on Learning from Limited Labeled Data @ ICLR 2019

We consider objective evaluation measures of saliency explanations for complex black-box machine learning models. We propose simple robust variants of two notions that have been considered in recent literature: (in)fidelity, and sensitivity. We analyze optimal explanations with respect to both these measures, and while the optimal explanation for sensitivity is a vacuous constant explanation, the optimal explanation for infidelity is a novel combination of two popular explanation methods. By varying the perturbation distribution that defines infidelity, we obtain novel explanations by optimizing infidelity, which we show to out-perform existing explanations in both quantitative and qualitative measurements. Another salient question given these measures is how to modify any given explanation to have better values with respect to these measures. We propose a simple modification based on lowering sensitivity, and moreover show that when done appropriately, we could simultaneously improve both sensitivity as well as fidelity., Comment: NeurIPS 2019 camera ready, previous version on Arxiv: "How Sensitive are Sensitivity-Based Explanations"