Pith. sign in

REVIEW

When does loss-based prioritization fail?

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

arxiv 2107.07741 v1 pith:NMNSBZNE submitted 2021-07-16 cs.LG

When does loss-based prioritization fail?

classification cs.LG
keywords examplestrainingexamplelossmodeldataloss-basedmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Not all examples are created equal, but standard deep neural network training protocols treat each training point uniformly. Each example is propagated forward and backward through the network the same amount of times, independent of how much the example contributes to the learning protocol. Recent work has proposed ways to accelerate training by deviating from this uniform treatment. Popular methods entail up-weighting examples that contribute more to the loss with the intuition that examples with low loss have already been learned by the model, so their marginal value to the training procedure should be lower. This view assumes that updating the model with high loss examples will be beneficial to the model. However, this may not hold for noisy, real world data. In this paper, we theorize and then empirically demonstrate that loss-based acceleration methods degrade in scenarios with noisy and corrupted data. Our work suggests measures of example difficulty need to correctly separate out noise from other types of challenging examples.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.