REVIEW 2 cited by
Proper Dataset Valuation by Pointwise Mutual Information
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
Data plays a central role in advancements in modern artificial intelligence, with high-quality data emerging as a key driver of model performance. This has prompted the development of principled and effective data curation methods in recent years. However, existing methods largely rely on heuristics, and whether they are truly effective remains unclear. For instance, standard evaluation methods that assess a trained model's performance on specific benchmarks may incentivize assigning high scores to data that merely resembles the test set. This issue exemplifies Goodhart's law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. To address this issue, we propose an information-theoretic framework for evaluating data curation methods. We define dataset quality in terms of its informativeness about the true model parameters, formalized using the Blackwell ordering of informativeness. Under this ordering, Blackwell's theorem ensures that more informative data yields optimal models with lower expected loss on the true underlying distribution. To measure informativeness, we show that the Blackwell order can be determined by the Shannon mutual information between the curated data and the test data. To estimate this mutual information, we introduce a novel method that trains Bayesian models on embedded datasets and computes mutual information from the posteriors of model parameters. Experiments on real-world data demonstrate that our mutual information-based evaluation assigns appropriately lower scores to data curation strategies that reduce dataset informativeness, while traditional test score-based evaluation methods may favor data curation strategies that overfit to the test set but compromise the training data's informativeness.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics
Statistical alignment with human ratings does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge is highly correlated but easily manipulated, while a new statement-level mutual-information metric is robust to manipulation.
-
Data Reliability Scoring
A Gram-determinant score ranks dataset reliability without ground truth from auxiliary observations, and is the only experiment-agnostic ranking up to a monotone transform.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.