REVIEW 1 cited by
Probabilistic Bilevel Coreset Selection
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
The goal of coreset selection in supervised learning is to produce a weighted subset of data, so that training only on the subset achieves similar performance as training on the entire dataset. Existing methods achieved promising results in resource-constrained scenarios such as continual learning and streaming. However, most of the existing algorithms are limited to traditional machine learning models. A few algorithms that can handle large models adopt greedy search approaches due to the difficulty in solving the discrete subset selection problem, which is computationally costly when coreset becomes larger and often produces suboptimal results. In this work, for the first time we propose a continuous probabilistic bilevel formulation of coreset selection by learning a probablistic weight for each training sample. The overall objective is posed as a bilevel optimization problem, where 1) the inner loop samples coresets and train the model to convergence and 2) the outer loop updates the sample probability progressively according to the model's performance. Importantly, we develop an efficient solver to the bilevel optimization problem via unbiased policy gradient without trouble of implicit differentiation. We provide the convergence property of our training procedure and demonstrate the superiority of our algorithm against various coreset selection methods in various tasks, especially in more challenging label-noise and class-imbalance scenarios.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
How Benchmark Prediction from Fewer Data Misses the Mark
Benchmark prediction methods mostly work by interpolation among similar models and fail on better, unfamiliar models, where random sampling with an AIPW-style correction is the only consistent improvement.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.