REVIEW 3 cited by
WRENCH: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Weak Supervision
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent Weak Supervision (WS) approaches have had widespread success in easing the bottleneck of labeling training data for machine learning by synthesizing labels from multiple potentially noisy supervision sources. However, proper measurement and analysis of these approaches remain a challenge. First, datasets used in existing works are often private and/or custom, limiting standardization. Second, WS datasets with the same name and base data often vary in terms of the labels and weak supervision sources used, a significant "hidden" source of evaluation variance. Finally, WS studies often diverge in terms of the evaluation protocol and ablations used. To address these problems, we introduce a benchmark platform, WRENCH, for thorough and standardized evaluation of WS approaches. It consists of 22 varied real-world datasets for classification and sequence tagging; a range of real, synthetic, and procedurally-generated weak supervision sources; and a modular, extensible framework for WS evaluation, including implementations for popular WS methods. We use WRENCH to conduct extensive comparisons over more than 120 method variants to demonstrate its efficacy as a benchmark platform. The code is available at https://github.com/JieyuZ2/wrench.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
HackerSignal: A Large-Scale Multi-Source Dataset Linking Hacker Community Discourse to the CVE Vulnerability Lifecycle
HackerSignal aggregates 7.45M documents from hacker communities, exploit databases, vulnerability reports, and fixes into a public benchmark for temporal OOD CVE linkage and exploit classification.
-
Scoring, Reasoning, and Selecting the Best! Ensembling Large Language Models via a Peer-Review Process
LLM-PeerReview ensembles LLMs by scoring responses with LLM-as-Judge and selecting the best via averaging or truth inference, beating Smoothie-Global by 6.9-7.3 points on four datasets.
-
Harnessing Multiple Large Language Models: A Survey on LLM Ensemble
A systematic survey of LLM ensemble methods organized into a taxonomy of ensemble-before-inference, ensemble-during-inference, and ensemble-after-inference stages, with review of benchmarks, applications, and future d...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.