arXiv Machine Learning

Proper Dataset Valuation by Pointwise Mutual Information

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 24

DataPrep-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs as Training Data Preparators

arXiv:2607. 20465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The quality of training data fundamentally determines the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet no unified benchmark exists to measure how well LLMs, agents, and data-centric workflows actually prepare training data end to end.

By Hao Liang, Qifeng Cai, Yibo Lin, Jianzhuo Du, Qifeng Xia, Sizhe Qiu, Linzhuang Sun, Meiyi Qiang, Zhaoyang Han, Xiaochen Ma, Bohan Zeng, Ruichuan An, Conghui He, Wentao Zhang
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Prediction-Powered Smoothing and Validation for Disaggregated AI Evaluation

The paper introduces prediction‑powered smoothing (PP‑S) and its taxonomy‑aware extension (PP‑TS) to improve point and interval estimates of domain‑specific AI performance when only a limited sample of labeled units is available. It also proposes a new design‑based cross‑validation score that is approximately unbiased for selecting between direct and smoothed estimators. Experiments on a curated benchmark and real‑world agent traffic show that the proposed methods outperform direct estimators in both accuracy and coverage, and that the new score matches the performance of an independent validation sample while providing more precise error estimates.

By Sho Kawano, Zehang Richard Li, Paul A. Parker
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Human-AI-Powered Hypothesis Testing: Cost-Aware Selective AI Scoring and Sequential Human Escalation

The paper introduces a framework for hypothesis testing that combines inexpensive AI judgments with selective human verification to control type‑I and type‑II errors while minimizing cost. It derives an information‑theoretic lower bound on the minimum cost and proposes the SCALE policy, a sequential, cost‑aware strategy that adapts AI scoring and human escalation. SCALE is proven valid for finite samples and asymptotically matches the lower bound, achieving significant savings when both AI and human inputs are valuable.

By Dae Woong (David), Ham, Xuejun Zhao, Stefanus Jasin, Fenghua Yang
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 21

BACON: Budgeted Human Calibration for Modeling and Evaluation with Multiple AI Judges

arXiv:2607. 16239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI judges offer a scalable, low-cost alternative to human evaluation, but their outputs can be biased relative to human preferences and highly item-dependent, varying across judges, tasks, and domains.

By Lei Shi, Anlan Zhang, Rita Lyu, Zhengmian Hu, Tong Yu, David Arbour, Avi Feller, Saayan Mitra, Ritwik Sinha
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Debiased Inference for AI-Generated Data without Gold-Standard Labels: Identification via Multiple Imperfect Measurements

The paper introduces Debiased Inference with Multiple Imperfect Measurements (DMM), a framework that uses several error‑prone AI measurements to perform valid downstream statistical inference without requiring costly gold‑standard labels. By assuming conditional independence of the measurements given the true label and unit‑level features, DMM leverages CP decomposition and semiparametric theory to prove consistency and asymptotic normality of its estimator. Simulations demonstrate that DMM yields valid inference and can improve efficiency when additional imperfect measurements are available, and the authors provide diagnostics for the key independence assumption.

By Naoki Egami, Sooahn Shin
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 26

Learning from a Biased Sample

arXiv:2209. 01754v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The empirical risk minimization approach to data-driven decision making requires access to training data drawn under the same conditions as those that will be faced when the decision rule is deployed.

By Roshni Sahoo, Lihua Lei, Stefan Wager