Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 187 references

CaTE Data Curation for Trustworthy AI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The report argues trustworthiness means optimizing for the true distribution of deployed inputs.

desk verdict A thorough, honest synthesis of data curation practice organized around a clear definition of trustworthiness; the central conditionality on knowing the true distribution is the main soft spot, but the report never overclaims beyond it. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14741 v1 pith:YVPPEX4T submitted 2025-08-20 cs.LG

Mary Versa Clemens-Sewall , Christopher Cervantes , Emma Rafkin , J. Neil Otte , Tom Magelinski , Libby Lewis , Michelle Liu , Dana Udwin
show 1 more author
Monique Kirkman-Bey
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords AItrustworthinessdatacurationtruedistributionshiftvalidationsetselectionresamplingweightingdomainknowledgeelicitation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The report argues that trustworthiness is not a vague aspiration but a concrete target: a trustworthy AI-enabled system must be optimized for performance on the true distribution of inputs it will encounter once deployed. It places this definition at the center of data curation, the phase between data acquisition and model training, and shows how data scientists can act on it. The authors identify two decision points—what is known about the true distribution, and whether interpretability or utility matters more—and connect those decisions to specific curation techniques: splitting, resampling, weighting, cleaning, and documentation. If the definition is accepted, the report's contribution is a practical workflow that turns 'trustworthy AI' into a set of concrete data-engineering choices rather than a slogan.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing concept is the 'true distribution' of deployed inputs, and the operating mechanism is the two-stage decision tree in Chapter 4. That tree maps four kinds of distributional knowledge (parametric estimates, a representative dataset, a prespecified representative subset, or an unlabeled representative subset) and five priority settings (from fully interpretable equal-weight data to opaque utility-maximizing weights) to specific curation actions. Every recommended technique is framed as a way to bring the training distribution closer to the true distribution, making the definition of trustworthiness executable.

What would settle it

Take two models with identical architecture and training budget. Train one on data curated with the report's decision tree and the other on the raw development data. Evaluate both on a large, independently collected sample from the true deployment distribution. If the curated model's performance is not higher, the report's central claim that curation guided by the true distribution promotes trustworthiness is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a trustworthy AI-enabled system must be optimized for performance on the true distribution of inputs it will encounter once deployed, and that this definition should guide data curation. Curation is not just preparation: it is the phase where developers translate the empirical distribution of available data toward the true distribution. The report organizes curation actions into a decision tree driven by two questions: what is known or assumed about the true distribution, and whether interpretability or utility matters more. Each branch leads to concrete techniques—representative sample selection, maximal representative subsampling, stratified splitting, resampling,

Load-bearing premise

The whole workflow assumes the true distribution of inputs in the deployed environment can be known or approximated well enough—through expert estimates, a representative sample, or a pre-specified subset—to guide curation choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Validation sets should be constructed to represent the true distribution, not just randomly held out; otherwise the demonstrated trustworthiness of the model is limited.
  • When no representative sample exists, domain experts must supply distributional parameters, and structured elicitation methods make that knowledge usable for splitting, weighting, and selection.
  • Resampling and weighting are interchangeable translations between distributions, with interpretability and calibration trade-offs; the right choice depends on the strength of the available model and the project's need for transparency.
  • Fairness is a special case of the framework: selected characteristics are the aspects across which performance must be equal, and fairness-oriented curation techniques apply to any mission-relevant characteristic.
  • Pretrained models and large language models enter the curation picture as feature generators: embeddings should be treated as features, and biased embeddings should be corrected during curation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework's usefulness depends on how well the true distribution can be elicited or sampled; a natural extension would pair the decision tree with post-deployment monitoring to detect drift and trigger re-curation.
  • The report's definition of trustworthiness is performance-centric; user perceptions, ethics, and accountability are acknowledged but left largely outside. An extension could treat those as additional selected characteristics or as constraints within the same decision structure.
  • The decision tree could be operationalized as a checklist or recommendation tool for data scientists, and automated distribution-shift detection might substitute for expert elicitation in settings where domain experts are unavailable.
  • The 'true distribution' framing assumes a single, relatively stable deployment environment; in nonstationary environments the framework would need a time-varying or scenario-based extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The report defines a trustworthy AI-enabled system as one optimized for performance on the true distribution of inputs in the deployed environment. It then organizes the data-curation phase into a sequence of actions—eliciting domain knowledge, choosing among statistical tools via a decision tree, splitting data, resampling/reweighting, semantic typing, documenting information, correcting mischaracterized data, and handling pretrained models—with the goal of aligning development data with the deployed environment. The contributions are primarily synthetic and advisory: a set of 12 SME questions, a two-stage decision tree, a catalogue of open-source tools, and illustrative practitioner experiments on a computer-vision triage task and a PubMed NLP task. The report is explicit that the actionable definition is conditional on knowledge of the true distribution, and it cites both the promise and the known limitations of the recommended techniques.

Significance. If taken as a practitioner-oriented synthesis, the report is useful and largely sound. Its main value is not novelty but a coherent operational framework that connects scattered data-curation techniques to a single normative definition of trustworthiness, with reproducible code in the appendices and references to open-source implementations. The explicit acknowledgment in §1.4 that demonstrated trustworthiness is bounded by knowledge of the true distribution, and in §7.1.2 that importance weighting is ineffective for some deep-learning regimes, strengthens the report's credibility. The two practitioner experiments are illustrative rather than confirmatory, and the report should not be read as providing quantitative evidence for the framework's efficacy. Overall, the central framing is defensible as long as the conditional nature of the claims is kept prominent.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 4.1, §1.4] The entire decision tree is gated by four mutually exclusive assumptions (a)–(d) about what is known of the true distribution. The report itself states in §1.4 that the true distribution may not be fully known and that demonstrable trustworthiness is constrained by that knowledge. This is an honest limitation, and I do not regard it as a hidden flaw. However, the practical claim in the abstract—that the described steps 'can promote trustworthiness'—is stronger than what the framework can deliver without an explicit procedure for deciding which of (a)–(d) holds, or for auditing sensitivity when the chosen case is wrong. I recommend adding a short subsection on robustness and assumption-checking: for example, re-running the main curation choices under several plausible distributional assumptions and reporting the spread of validation performance. This would make the conditional premise ope
  2. [§7.1.2 and Figure 4.1] The report notes that importance-weighted empirical risk minimization (IW-ERM) has little effect on deep networks trained for long durations, citing empirical and theoretical results, with only a possible recovery via polynomial-tailed losses. Yet the decision tree in Figure 4.1 routes paths (1a)/(2c) and (1d)/(2c) to importance weighting without distinguishing model class or training duration. Since many deployed AI-enabled systems are deep networks, this is a load-bearing omission: a practitioner following the recommended path for a modern deep model could use a method the report itself says is ineffective. I recommend adding a branch or explicit caveat in the decision tree and §7.4 telling users to test importance weighting against an unweighted baseline, or to prefer alternatives (e.g., data valuation, dynamic weighting, curriculum learning) when training deep models for long duratio
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.4.2, §7.5, Tables 5.1 and 7.1] The quantitative evidence consists of one PubMed split with k=800 and no repeated trials or error bars. The observed differences for '% Receiving U.S. Money' are within one percentage point of each other, which is not strong evidence of effectiveness. These sections should be labeled explicitly as illustrative walk-throughs rather than empirical validations.
  2. [§5.4.1 and §7] There are several typographical errors: 'scikit kearn' should be 'scikit-learn'; 'weigthing' should be 'weighting'; and the column header 'T raining' in Table 5.1 contains a stray space. These should be corrected.
  3. [§1.2] 'Relative the actionable definition' is missing the word 'to'; it should read 'Relative to the actionable definition.'
  4. [§4.2, Figure 4.1] The decision tree is dense and may be difficult to parse in print. A tabular summary mapping each (decision 1, decision 2) combination to the relevant chapter sections and tools would aid reproducibility for practitioners.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the report is a synthesis organized around an explicit normative definition, and its practitioner demonstrations illustrate tools rather than making forced predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a prediction from its own definition in a circular way. The actionable definition of trustworthiness in Section 1.1 ('A trustworthy AI-enabled system must be optimized for performance on the true distribution of inputs it will encounter in a deployed environment') is explicitly introduced as a normative choice, not as an output of analysis. The report then catalogs existing data-curation techniques that aim to align training and validation data with knowledge of that distribution. The central claim is conditional: if the true distribution is known well enough, these steps can help promote trustworthiness. Section 1.4 openly acknowledges that 'the demonstrable trustworthiness of an AI-enabled system is constrained by the extent to which the true distribution is known' and that 'it is not assumed that the true distribution can be fully known and parameterized.' This is an honest limitation, not a concealed circularity. The practitioner-perspective experiments (Sections 5.4.2 and 7.5) report that sample selection and weighting move observed characteristics toward the deployed-environment target values; that is the optimization objective of the tools being demonstrated, not a prediction claimed as independent evidence. The report does not invoke self-citations for load-bearing claims, import uniqueness theorems, or rename a known result as a new derivation. The framework is self-contained as a synthesis, with its value depending on the practical validity of eliciting or approximating the true distribution, which is a correctness/assumption concern rather than a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report's guidance rests on a normative definition of trustworthiness and on the practical attainability of knowledge about the true distribution. These are explicit assumptions, not free parameters.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Trustworthiness is defined as optimized performance on the true distribution of inputs in the deployed environment.
    Section 1.1 defines trustworthiness this way and the entire report is organized around it; it is a normative assumption, not derived from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The true distribution of inputs is knowable or approximable via SME elicitation or representative samples.
    Section 3.3 and Section 1.4 assume that domain experts can provide parameters or that a representative sample can be obtained; this is necessary for the decision tree and most curation techniques.
  • domain assumption A validation set that is representative of the true distribution serves as a reliable proxy for measuring and optimizing trustworthiness.
    Chapter 5 and the definition in Section 1.1 rely on the validation set to estimate performance on the true distribution; the report acknowledges this is an imperfect proxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CaTE Data Curation for Trustworthy AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVPPEX4T

@misc{pith2026250814741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CaTE Data Curation for Trustworthy AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVPPEX4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14741}
}
read the original abstract

This report provides practical guidance to teams designing or developing AI-enabled systems for how to promote trustworthiness during the data curation phase of development. In this report, the authors first define data, the data curation phase, and trustworthiness. We then describe a series of steps that the development team, especially data scientists, can take to build a trustworthy AI-enabled system. We enumerate the sequence of core steps and trace parallel paths where alternatives exist. The descriptions of these steps include strengths, weaknesses, preconditions, outcomes, and relevant open-source software tool implementations. In total, this report is a synthesis of data curation tools and approaches from relevant academic literature, and our goal is to equip readers with a diverse yet coherent set of practices for improving AI trustworthiness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data curation workflow composed of actions in the data curation phase and neighboring phases, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Two-dimensional dataset (|d x | = 2) shown with labels (square, triangle); (a) depicts the available dataset (D); (b) depicts the ideal dataset (D˜) in which a relevant but un-encoded aspect is pictured (red, blue) Consider a project in which a data scientist has been given a simple labeled dataset, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Data curation action decision tree, primarily centered around (1) what is known about the true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.1. Figure 8.1: Example SPARQL query for the total count of military vehicles and the total count of civilian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_8_1.png]
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2: Example SPARQL query for the percentage of military vehicles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_8_2.png]
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.1. Figure 9.1: Questions to answer in an information system accompanying an AI-enabled system under de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_9_1.png]
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.1. Figure 11.1: Example AI pipeline. A real-world entity (a) is encoded with human-interpretable attributes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_11_1.png]
Figure 11.2
Figure 11.2. Figure 11.2: Example AI pipelines. A real-world entity (a) is represented as an image (top) or text (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_11_2.png]
Figure 11.3
Figure 11.3. Figure 11.3: Example AI pipeline. A real-world entity (a) is represented as text (b; e.g., natural language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_11_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL: https://c2pa.org/specifications/ specifications/1.3/guidance/Guidance.html#1.4@specs:C2PA_Specification.adoc

    C2PA Implementation Guidance :: C2PA Specifications. URL: https://c2pa.org/specifications/ specifications/1.3/guidance/Guidance.html#1.4@specs:C2PA_Specification.adoc

  2. [2]

    URL: https://dataandtrustalliance.org/

    The Data & Trust Alliance. URL: https://dataandtrustalliance.org/

  3. [3]

    URL: https://developers.google.com/ looker-studio/connector/semantics

    Data types and semantic types | Community Connectors. URL: https://developers.google.com/ looker-studio/connector/semantics

  4. [4]

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06368 , doi:10.1145/31 32847.3132938

    Fa*ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06368 , doi:10.1145/31 32847.3132938

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. 18. URL: https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649506, doi:10.1145/3649506

    doi:10.1145/3649506

  6. [6]

    URL: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/data-p rovenance-for-ai/overview/

    Project Overview - Data Provenance for AI. URL: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/data-p rovenance-for-ai/overview/

  7. [7]

    URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

    PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

  8. [8]

    URL: https://rdflib.readthedocs.io/en/stable/#

    rdflib 7.0.0 — rdflib 7.0.0 documentation. URL: https://rdflib.readthedocs.io/en/stable/#

Show all 187 references
  1. [9]

    metrics and scoring

    Scikit-learn user guide — 3.4. metrics and scoring. URL: https://scikit-learn/stable/modules/ model_evaluation.html

  2. [10]

    The Academy of Management Review , 20(3):709–734, 1995

    An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review , 20(3):709–734, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Technical report, United States Department of Defense, 2018

    SUMMARY OF THE 2018 department OF DEFENSE artificial INTELLIGENCE strategy. Technical report, United States Department of Defense, 2018. URL: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/1 2/2002088963/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-DOD-AI-STRATEGY.PDF

    2018

  4. [12]

    Auxiliary information: the raking-ratio empirical process

    Mickael Albertus and Philippe Berthet. Auxiliary information: the raking-ratio empirical process. 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Why resampling outperforms reweighting for correcting sam- pling bias with stochastic gradients

    Jing An, Lexing Ying, and Yuhua Zhu. Why resampling outperforms reweighting for correcting sam- pling bias with stochastic gradients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13447 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    An approach for classification of highly imbalanced data using weighting and undersampling

    Ashish Anand, Ganesan Pugalenthi, Gary B Fogel, and PN Suganthan. An approach for classification of highly imbalanced data using weighting and undersampling. Amino acids, 39:1385–1391, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    The impossibility of fair llms

    Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D’Amour, and Chenhao Tan. The impossibility of fair llms. (arXiv:2406.03198), May 2024. arXiv:2406.03198 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03198

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness

    Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Pseudo-labeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , page 1–8, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2020. IEEE. URL: https:...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Data catalog vocabulary (dcat) (w3c recommendation)

    Phil Archer. Data catalog vocabulary (dcat) (w3c recommendation). Online, January 2014. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 80

    2014

  10. [18]

    Wefe: The word embeddings fairness eval- uation framework

    Pablo Badilla, Felipe Bravo-Marquez, and Jorge P´ erez. Wefe: The word embeddings fairness eval- uation framework. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence , page 430–436, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. International Joint Conferen...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Optimal representative sample weighting

    Shane Barratt, Guillermo Angeris, and Stephen Boyd. Optimal representative sample weighting. Statistics and Computing , 31(2):19, March 2021. doi:10.1007/s11222-021-10001-1

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Practical considerations in raking survey data

    Michael P Battaglia, David C Hoaglin, and Martin R Frankel. Practical considerations in raking survey data. Survey practice, 2(5), 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Semantic data types

    Ivan Begtin. Semantic data types. Systematic approach and types registry, April 2022. URL: https: //medium.com/@ibegtin/semantic-data-types-systematic-approach-and-types-registry-a 2c2a60a467b

    2022

  14. [22]

    Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Seema Nagar, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, John Richards, Diptikalyan Saha, Prasanna Sattigeri, Moninde...

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Recovering from biased data: Can fairness constraints improve accu- racy? (arXiv:1912.01094), December 2019

    Avrim Blum and Kevin Stangl. Recovering from biased data: Can fairness constraints improve accu- racy? (arXiv:1912.01094), December 2019. arXiv:1912.01094 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/ab s/1912.01094, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1912.01094

    1912 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings

    Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam Kalai. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. (arXiv:1607.06520), July 2016. arXiv:1607.06520 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06520

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Identifying problems with raking estimators

    J Michael Brick, Jill Montaquila, and Shelley Roth. Identifying problems with raking estimators. In annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Francisco, CA , 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    What is the effect of importance weighting in deep learning? In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2018

    Jonathon Byrd and Zachary Chase Lipton. What is the effect of importance weighting in deep learning? In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2018. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:83458523

    2018

  19. [27]

    Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan

    Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J. Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334):183–186, April 2017. URL: https: //www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4230, doi:10.1126/science.aal4230

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    A decision-driven methodology for designing uncertainty-aware ai self-assessment

    Gregory Canal, Vladimir Leung, Philip Sage, Eric Heim, I Wang, et al. A decision-driven methodology for designing uncertainty-aware ai self-assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01301 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fairness with adaptive weights

    Junyi Chai and Xiaoqian Wang. Fairness with adaptive weights. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2853–2866. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, Wei Ye, Yue Zhang, Yi Chang, Philip S. Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent System...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 16:321–357, June 2002. URL: https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair/article/view/10302, doi:10.1613/jair.953

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in large language models: a comprehensive review

    Banghao Chen, Zhaofeng Zhang, Nicolas Langren´ e, and Shengxin Zhu. Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in large language models: a comprehensive review. (arXiv:2310.14735), September [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 81

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    OoD- Analyzer: Interactive Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Samples, February 2020

    Changjian Chen, Jun Yuan, Yafeng Lu, Yang Liu, Hang Su, Songtao Yuan, and Shixia Liu. OoD- Analyzer: Interactive Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Samples, February 2020. arXiv:2002.03103 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03103

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 785–794, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Semantic Type Detection in Tabular Data via Machine Learning Using Semi-synthetic Data

    Marc Chevallier, Nicoleta Rogovschi, Faouzi Boufar` es, and Nistor Grozavu. Semantic Type Detection in Tabular Data via Machine Learning Using Semi-synthetic Data. In Ajith Abraham, Thomas Hanne, Niketa Gandhi, Pooja Manghirmalani Mishra, Anu Bajaj, and Patrick Siarry, editors...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Jordan, Joseph E

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Banghua Zhu, Hao Zhang, Michael I. Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. In ICML, 2024. URL: https:...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering

    Davide Chicco, Luca Oneto, and Erica Tavazzi. Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering. PLOS Computational Biology , 18(12):1–21, 12 2022. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.101 0718

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Statistical functions (scipy.stats) — scipy v1.13.0 manual

    SciPy Community. Statistical functions (scipy.stats) — scipy v1.13.0 manual. URL: https://docs.s cipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/stats.html#module-scipy.stats

  31. [39]

    On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known

    W Edwards Deming and Frederick F Stephan. On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 11(4):427– 444, 1940

    1940

  32. [40]

    Calibration estimators in survey sampling

    Jean-Claude Deville and Carl-Erik S¨ arndal. Calibration estimators in survey sampling. Journal of the American statistical Association, 87(418):376–382, 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Multi- dimensional gender bias classification

    Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Ledell Wu, Jason Weston, Douwe Kiela, and Adina Williams. Multi- dimensional gender bias classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 314–331, Online, November 2020. Associati...

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    A survey on in-context learning

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. A survey on in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page ...

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Breaking the bias: Gender fairness in llms using prompt engineering and in-context learning

    Satyam Dwivedi, Sanjukta Ghosh, and Shivam Dwivedi. Breaking the bias: Gender fairness in llms using prompt engineering and in-context learning. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 15(4), December 2023. URL: https://rupkatha.com/v15n410, doi:10.21659/r...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    To smote, or not to smote? arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08528 , 2022

    Yotam Elor and Hadar Averbuch-Elor. To smote, or not to smote? arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08528 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Abolfazl Farahani, Sahar Voghoei, Khaled Rasheed, and Hamid R. Arabnia. A Brief Review of Domain Adaptation, page 877–894. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021. URL: https://link.spr inger.com/10.1007/978-3-030-71704-9_65 , doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71704-9_65

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1126–1135. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey

    Beno ˆ ıt Fr´ enay and Michel Verleysen. Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , 25(5):845–869, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Debie: A platform for implicit and explicit debiasing of word embedding spaces

    Niklas Friedrich, Anne Lauscher, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaˇ s. Debie: A platform for implicit and explicit debiasing of word embedding spaces. (arXiv:2103.06598), March 2021. arXiv:2103.06598 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06598

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Explainable disparity compensation for efficient fair ranking

    Abraham Gale and Am´ elie Marian. Explainable disparity compensation for efficient fair ranking. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , page 2192–2204, Utrecht, Netherlands, May 2024. IEEE. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10597822/ , ...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. (arXiv:2312.10997), March 2024. arXiv:2312.10997. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997 , do...

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    New Oversampling Approaches Based on Polynomial Fitting for Imbalanced Data Sets

    Sami Gazzah and Najoua Essoukri Ben Amara. New Oversampling Approaches Based on Polynomial Fitting for Imbalanced Data Sets. In 2008 The Eighth IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems, pages 677–684, September 2008. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract /d...

    2008

  45. [53]

    Grammar-constrained decoding for structured NLP tasks without finetuning

    Saibo Geng, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, and Robert West. Grammar-constrained decoding for structured NLP tasks without finetuning. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=KkHY1WGDII

    2023

  46. [54]

    A Distributional Framework For Data Valuation

    Amirata Ghorbani, Michael Kim, and James Zou. A Distributional Framework For Data Valuation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 3535–3544. PMLR, November 2020. URL: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/ghorbani20a.html

    2020

  47. [55]

    Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learning, June 2019

    Amirata Ghorbani and James Zou. Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learning, June 2019. arXiv:1904.02868 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02868

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A primer on neural network models for natural language processing

    Yoav Goldberg. A primer on neural network models for natural language processing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 57:345–420, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Neural network methods for natural language processing

    Yoav Goldberg. Neural network methods for natural language processing . Springer Nature, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them

    Hila Gonen and Yoav Goldberg. Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them. page 60–63, August 2019. URL: https://acla nthology.org/W19-3621

    2019

  51. [59]

    Automated data cleaning can hurt fairness in machine learning-based decision making

    Shubha Guha, Falaah Arif Khan, Julia Stoyanovich, and Sebastian Schelter. Automated data cleaning can hurt fairness in machine learning-based decision making. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, page 1–12, 2024. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/docume...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovi´ c, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , page 83...

  53. [61]

    Achieving Counterfactual Fairness for Anomaly Detection, volume 13935, page 55–66

    Xiao Han, Lu Zhang, Yongkai Wu, and Shuhan Yuan. Achieving Counterfactual Fairness for Anomaly Detection, volume 13935, page 55–66. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-33374-...

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Distributional structure

    Zellig Harris. Distributional structure. Word, 10(2-3):146–162, 1954. URL: https://link.springe r.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7_1 , doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7_1

    1954 doi

  55. [63]

    Discriminative machine learning for maximal representative subsampling

    Tony Hauptmann, Sophie Fellenz, Laksan Nathan, Oliver T¨ uscher, and Stefan Kramer. Discriminative machine learning for maximal representative subsampling. Scientific Reports, 13(1):20925, November

  56. [64]

    Identification of outliers , volume 11

    Douglas M Hawkins. Identification of outliers , volume 11. Springer, 1980

    1980

  57. [65]

    Garcia, and Shutao Li

    Haibo He, Yang Bai, Edwardo A. Garcia, and Shutao Li. ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) , pages 1322–1328, June 2008. ISSN: 21...

    2008

  58. [66]

    Deep residual learning for image recogni- tion

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recogni- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    Understanding machine learning practitioners’ data documentation perceptions, needs, challenges, and desiderata

    Amy K Heger, Liz B Marquis, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. Understanding machine learning practitioners’ data documentation perceptions, needs, challenges, and desiderata. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 6(CSCW2):1–29, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Some reflections on innovation and invention

    George H Heilmeier. Some reflections on innovation and invention. The Bridge , 1992

    1992

  61. [69]

    Machine Learning Algorithms, pages 117–259

    Eklas Hossain. Machine Learning Algorithms, pages 117–259. Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  62. [70]

    Hacking with npos: collaborative analytics and broker roles in civic data hackathons

    Youyang Hou and Dakuo Wang. Hacking with npos: collaborative analytics and broker roles in civic data hackathons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 1(CSCW):1–16, 2017

    2017

  63. [71]

    Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP

    Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    As biased as you measure: Methodological pitfalls of bias evaluations in speaker verification research

    Wiebke Hutiri, Tanvina Patel, Aaron Yi Ding, and Odette Scharenborg. As biased as you measure: Methodological pitfalls of bias evaluations in speaker verification research. In Interspeech 2024, page 4268–4272. ISCA, September 2024. URL: https://www.isca-archive.org/interspeech...

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46990-9_3

    doi

  66. [74]

    Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learning, January

    Heinrich Jiang and Ofir Nachum. Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learning, January

  67. [75]

    Johnson and Taghi M

    Justin M. Johnson and Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar. Survey on deep learning with class imbalance. Journal of Big Data , 6(1):27, March 2019. doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0192-5

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    Roshan Joseph and Akhil Vakayil

    V. Roshan Joseph and Akhil Vakayil. Split: An optimal method for data splitting. Technometrics, 64(2):166–176, April 2022. arXiv:2012.10945 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10945 , doi:10.1080/00401706.2021.1921037. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public rele...

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Date and time format—iso 8601

    International Organization for Standards. Date and time format—iso 8601. URL: www.iso.org/is o-8601-date-and-time-format.html

  70. [78]

    Debiasing pre-trained contextualised embeddings

    Masahiro Kaneko and Danushka Bollegala. Debiasing pre-trained contextualised embeddings. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , page 1256–1266, Online, 2021. Association for Computational Li...

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    Hauptmann

    Guoliang Kang, Lu Jiang, Yi Yang, and Alexander G. Hauptmann. Contrastive adaptation network for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2019

    2019

  72. [80]

    Prompting large language models with audio for general-purpose speech summarization

    Wonjune Kang and Deb Roy. Prompting large language models with audio for general-purpose speech summarization. In Interspeech 2024, page 1955–1959. ISCA, September 2024. URL: https://www.is ca-archive.org/interspeech_2024/kang24d_interspeech.html , doi:10.21437/Interspeech.2 024-2213

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    Preventing catastrophic forgetting in continual learning of new natural language tasks

    Sudipta Kar, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, Shervin Malmasi, and Oleg Rokhlenko. Preventing catastrophic forgetting in continual learning of new natural language tasks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , page 3137–31...

    2022

  74. [82]

    Learning fair classifiers with partially annotated group labels

    Sangwon Jung, Sanghyuk Chun, and Taesup Moon. Learning fair classifiers with partially annotated group labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 10348–10357, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    A Survey of Domain Knowledge Elicitation in Applied Machine Learning

    Daniel Kerrigan, Jessica Hullman, and Enrico Bertini. A Survey of Domain Knowledge Elicitation in Applied Machine Learning. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(12):73, November 2021. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/5/12/73, doi:10.3390/mti5120073

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Towards fair rag: On the impact of fair ranking in retrieval-augmented generation

    To Eun Kim and Fernando Diaz. Towards fair rag: On the impact of fair ranking in retrieval-augmented generation. (arXiv:2409.11598), September 2024. arXiv:2409.11598 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/ab s/2409.11598

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A short survey on importance weighting for machine learning,

    Masanari Kimura and Hideitsu Hino. A short survey on importance weighting for machine learning,

  78. [86]

    Earnshaw, Imran S

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubra- mani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, Tony Lee, Etienne David, Ian Stavness, Wei Guo, Berton A. Earnshaw, Imran S. Haque, Sara Beery, Jure Leskovec,...

    2021 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    Fleischmann, and William A

    Kari Kelton, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, and William A. Wallace. Trust in digital information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 59(3):363–374, 2008. URL: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.20722 , arXiv:https://onlinelibrar...

    2008 doi

  80. [88]

    Aggregating human domain knowledge for feature ranking

    Jaroslaw Kornowicz and Kirsten Thommes. Aggregating human domain knowledge for feature ranking. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction , pages 98–114. Springer, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Adaptive Sensitive Reweighting to Mitigate Bias in Fairness-aware Classification

    Emmanouil Krasanakis, Eleftherios Spyromitros-Xioufis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Yiannis Kom- patsiaris. Adaptive Sensitive Reweighting to Mitigate Bias in Fairness-aware Classification. In Pro- ceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference , WWW ’18, pages 853–862, Republic a...

    2018

  82. [90]

    Kub´ at and S

    M. Kub´ at and S. Matwin. Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: One-sided selection. 1997. URL: https://sci2s.ugr.es/keel/pdf/algorithm/congreso/kubat97addressing.pdf

    1997

  83. [91]

    Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum

    Preethi Lahoti, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. ifair: Learning individually fair data representations for algorithmic decision making. In 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), page 1334–1345, Macao, Macao, 2019. IEEE. URL: https://ieeexpl...

    2019

  84. [92]

    Column Type Annotation using ChatGPT, July 2023

    Keti Korini and Christian Bizer. Column Type Annotation using ChatGPT, July 2023. arXiv:2306.00745 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00745 , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306. 00745

    2023 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    Biocreative v cdr task corpus: a resource for chemical disease relation extraction

    Jiao Li, Yueping Sun, Robin J Johnson, Daniela Sciaky, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Robert Leaman, Allan Peter Davis, Carolyn J Mattingly, Thomas C Wiegers, and Zhiyong Lu. Biocreative v cdr task corpus: a resource for chemical disease relation extraction. Database, 2016, 2016

    2016

  86. [94]

    Table-GPT: Table Fine-tuned GPT for Diverse Table Tasks

    Peng Li, Yeye He, Dror Yashar, Weiwei Cui, Song Ge, Haidong Zhang, Danielle Rifinski Fainman, Dongmei Zhang, and Surajit Chaudhuri. Table-GPT: Table Fine-tuned GPT for Diverse Table Tasks. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data , 2(3):176:1–176:28, May 2024. URL: https:/...

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    Ecg noise sources and various noise removal techniques: A survey

    Hrishikesh Limaye and VV Deshmukh. Ecg noise sources and various noise removal techniques: A survey. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management , 5(2):86–92, 2016

    2016

  88. [96]

    Model-based synthetic sampling for imbalanced data

    Chien-Liang Liu and Po-Yen Hsieh. Model-based synthetic sampling for imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 32(8):1543–1556, August 2020. URL: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8668459/;jsessionid=A4DAB03AE1C5BF2DE06E6F25EF2BC7F0 , doi:10.11...

    2020

  89. [97]

    The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , page 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 2021. Association for...

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    2d-shapley: A framework for fragmented data valuation

    Zhihong Liu, Hoang Anh Just, Xiangyu Chang, Xi Chen, and Ruoxi Jia. 2d-shapley: A framework for fragmented data valuation. (arXiv:2306.10473), July 2023. arXiv:2306.10473 [cs]. URL: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2306.10473

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Data authenticity, consent, & provenance for ai are all broken: what will it take to fix them?, 2024

    Shayne Longpre, Robert Mahari, Naana Obeng-Marnu, William Brannon, Tobin South, Katy Gero, Sandy Pentland, and Jad Kabbara. Data authenticity, consent, & provenance for ai are all broken: what will it take to fix them?, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12691, arXiv:2404.12691

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    De-biasing “bias” measurement

    Kristian Lum, Yunfeng Zhang, and Amanda Bower. De-biasing “bias” measurement. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , page 379–389, Seoul Republic of Korea, June 2022. ACM. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3531146.3533105 , doi:10.1145/3531 14...

    2022

  93. [101]

    C M. Teng. Correcting noisy data. In Proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on machine learning, pages 239–248, 1999. URL: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&ty pe=pdf&doi=ac3f433755c4e90cd97fb12ae49f17c232cae85c

    1999

  94. [102]

    Is your code generated by chatGPT really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and LINGMING ZHANG. Is your code generated by chatGPT really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. In Thirty- seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023. URL: https://openr...

    2023

  95. [103]

    A survey on self-supervised pre-training for sequential transfer learning in neural networks

    Huanru Henry Mao. A survey on self-supervised pre-training for sequential transfer learning in neural networks. (arXiv:2007.00800), July 2020. arXiv:2007.00800 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2007.00800

    2007 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Alek- sandra Mojsilovi´ c. How data scientists work together with domain experts in scientific collaborations: To find the right answer or to ask the right question? Proceedings of the ACM ...

    2019

  97. [105]

    Prompt Engi- neering in Large Language Models , page 387–402

    Ggaliwango Marvin, Nakayiza Hellen, Daudi Jjingo, and Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende. Prompt Engi- neering in Large Language Models , page 387–402. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2024. URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-99-7962-2_30 , doi:10.1007/978-981-99-796 2-2_30

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    Bowman, and Rachel Rudinger

    Chandler May, Alex Wang, Shikha Bordia, Samuel R. Bowman, and Rachel Rudinger. On measuring social biases in sentence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North , page 622–628, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: http...

    2019 doi

  99. [108]

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04047

    arXiv:1904.04047 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04047. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 86

    1904 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Exploring data splitting strate- gies for the evaluation of recommendation models

    Zaiqiao Meng, Richard McCreadie, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. Exploring data splitting strate- gies for the evaluation of recommendation models. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys ’20, page 681–686, New York, NY, USA, September 2020. A...

    2020

  101. [110]

    Efficient estimation of word representa- tions in vector space

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Efficient estimation of word representa- tions in vector space. 2013. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1301. 3781

    2013 doi arXiv

  102. [111]

    Mteb: Massive text embedding benchmark

    Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers. Mteb: Massive text embedding benchmark. In Andreas Vlachos and Isabelle Augenstein, editors, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , page 2014...

    2014 doi

  103. [112]

    How data science workers work with data: Discovery, capture, curation, design, creation

    Michael Muller, Ingrid Lange, Dakuo Wang, David Piorkowski, Jason Tsay, Q Vera Liao, Casey Dugan, and Thomas Erickson. How data science workers work with data: Discovery, capture, curation, design, creation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computi...

    2019

  104. [113]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and pro- jection for dimension reduction

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and pro- jection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  105. [114]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning

    Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , 54(6):1–35, 2021

    2021

  106. [115]

    Northcutt, Lu Jiang, and Isaac L

    Curtis G. Northcutt, Lu Jiang, and Isaac L. Chuang. Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) , 70:1373–1411, 2021. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 87

    2021

  107. [116]

    Dod adopts ethical principles for artificial intelligence [press release], 2020

    United States Department of Defense. Dod adopts ethical principles for artificial intelligence [press release], 2020. URL: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2091996/dod-a dopts-ethical-principles-for-artificial-intelligence/

    2020

  108. [117]

    O’Hagan, C.E

    A. O’Hagan, C.E. Buck, A. Daneshkhah, J.R. Eiser, P.H. Garthwaite, D.J. Jenkinson, J.E. Oakley, and T. Rakow. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities . Statistics in Practice. Wiley,

  109. [118]

    Fair Outlier Detection, August 2020

    Deepak P and Savitha Sam Abraham. Fair Outlier Detection, August 2020. arXiv:2005.09900 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09900, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.09900

    2020 doi arXiv

  110. [119]

    Tuan Nguyen, Toan Tran, Yarin Gal, Philip Torr, and Atilim Gunes Baydin

    A. Tuan Nguyen, Toan Tran, Yarin Gal, Philip Torr, and Atilim Gunes Baydin. KL guided domain adaptation. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022. URL: https://openre view.net/forum?id=0JzqUlIVVDd

    2022

  111. [120]

    Sheng, and Zhiheng Wang

    Bryce Nicholson, Jing Zhang, Victor S. Sheng, and Zhiheng Wang. Label noise correction methods. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) , pages 1–9, October 2015. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7344791?casa_token=...

    2015

  112. [121]

    Roger D. Peng. 6.3 Rejection Sampling — Advanced Statistical Computing . URL: https://bookdown .org/rdpeng/advstatcomp/rejection-sampling.html

  113. [122]

    Glove: Global vectors for word repre- sentation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word repre- sentation. In Alessandro Moschitti, Bo Pang, and Walter Daelemans, editors, Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , page ...

    2014 doi

  114. [123]

    How ai developers overcome communication challenges in a multidisciplinary team: A case study

    David Piorkowski, Soya Park, April Yi Wang, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, and Felix Portnoy. How ai developers overcome communication challenges in a multidisciplinary team: A case study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 5(CSCW1):1–25, 2021

    2021

  115. [124]

    Jos´ e Pombal, Pedro Saleiro, M´ ario A. T. Figueiredo, and Pedro Bizarro. Fairness-Aware Data Valuation for Supervised Learning, March 2023. arXiv:2303.16963 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.1 6963

    2023 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Biproportional scaling of matrices and the iterative proportional fitting proce- dure

    Friedrich Pukelsheim. Biproportional scaling of matrices and the iterative proportional fitting proce- dure. Annals of Operations Research, 215:269–283, 2014

    2014

  117. [126]

    Facilitating knowledge sharing from domain experts to data scientists for building nlp models

    Soya Park, April Yi Wang, Ban Kawas, Q Vera Liao, David Piorkowski, and Marina Danilevsky. Facilitating knowledge sharing from domain experts to data scientists for building nlp models. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages 585–596, 2021

    2021

  118. [127]

    Trust in data science: Collaboration, translation, and account- ability in corporate data science projects

    Samir Passi and Steven J Jackson. Trust in data science: Collaboration, translation, and account- ability in corporate data science projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 2(CSCW):1–28, 2018

    2018

  119. [128]

    From prejudice to parity: A new approach to debiasing large language model word embed- dings

    Aishik Rakshit, Smriti Singh, Shuvam Keshari, Arijit Ghosh Chowdhury, Vinija Jain, and Aman Chadha. From prejudice to parity: A new approach to debiasing large language model word embed- dings. (arXiv:2402.11512), April 2024. arXiv:2402.11512 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/24...

    2024 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Reitermanov´ a

    Z. Reitermanov´ a. Data splitting. 2010. URL: https://physics.mff.cuni.cz/wds/proc/pdf10/WDS 10_105_i1_Reitermanova.pdf

    2010

  121. [130]

    Learning to Reweight Examples for Robust Deep Learning, May 2019

    Mengye Ren, Wenyuan Zeng, Bin Yang, and Raquel Urtasun. Learning to Reweight Examples for Robust Deep Learning, May 2019. arXiv:1803.09050 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.0 9050, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1803.09050. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release a...

    2019 doi arXiv

  122. [131]

    Matrix scaling by network flow

    G¨ unter Rote and Martin Zachariasen. Matrix scaling by network flow. InSymposium on Discrete Algo- rithms: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, volume 7, pages 848–854, 2007

    2007

  123. [132]

    Multi-fairness Under Class-Imbalance

    Arjun Roy, Vasileios Iosifidis, and Eirini Ntoutsi. Multi-fairness Under Class-Imbalance. In Poncelet Pascal and Dino Ienco, editors, Discovery Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 286–301, Cham, 2022. Springer Nature Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18840-4_21

    2022 doi

  124. [133]

    Data quality dimensions for fair ai

    Camilla Quaresmini and Giuseppe Primiero. Data quality dimensions for fair ai. (arXiv:2305.06967), May 2023. arXiv:2305.06967 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06967 , doi:10.48550/arXiv .2305.06967

    2023 doi arXiv

  125. [134]

    Dataset Shift in Machine Learning

    Joaquin Qui˜ nonero-Candela, Masashi Sugiyama, Anton Schwaighofer, Neil D Lawrence, Amos Storkey, David Corfield, Matthias Hein, Lars Kai Hansen, Shai Ben-David, and Takafumi Kanamori. Dataset Shift in Machine Learning . Neural Information Processing series. MIT Press, Cambrid...

    2008

  126. [135]

    Imparting fairness to pre-trained biased representations

    Bashir Sadeghi and Vishnu Naresh Boddeti. Imparting fairness to pre-trained biased representations. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR W), page 75–82, Seattle, W A, USA, 2020. IEEE. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9...

    2020

  127. [137]

    Evaluating metrics for bias in word embeddings

    Sarah Schr¨ oder, Alexander Schulz, Philip Kenneweg, Robert Feldhans, Fabian Hinder, and Barbara Hammer. Evaluating metrics for bias in word embeddings. (arXiv:2111.07864), September 2024. arXiv:2111.07864. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07864, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2111.07864

    2024 doi arXiv

  128. [138]

    Kroiz, Feileen Li, Hudson Tao, Ashay Srivastava, Hevander Da Costa, Saloni Gupta, Megan L

    Sander Schulhoff, Michael Ilie, Nishant Balepur, Konstantine Kahadze, Amanda Liu, Chenglei Si, Yin- heng Li, Aayush Gupta, HyoJung Han, Sevien Schulhoff, Pranav Sandeep Dulepet, Saurav Vidyadhara, Dayeon Ki, Sweta Agrawal, Chau Pham, Gerson C. Kroiz, Feileen Li, Hudson Tao, As...

    arXiv

  129. [139]

    Resampling or reweight- ing: A comparison of boosting implementations

    Chris Seiffert, Taghi M Khoshgoftaar, Jason Van Hulse, and Amri Napolitano. Resampling or reweight- ing: A comparison of boosting implementations. In 2008 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence , volume 1, pages 445–451. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  130. [140]

    Deep one-class classification

    Lukas Ruff, Robert Vandermeulen, Nico Goernitz, Lucas Deecke, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Alexander Binder, Emmanuel M¨ uller, and Marius Kloft. Deep one-class classification. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Le...

    2018

  131. [141]

    Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

    Stuart J Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach . Pearson, 2010

    2010

  132. [142]

    Fairness of exposure in rankings

    Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. Fairness of exposure in rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , page 2219–2228, London United Kingdom, July 2018. ACM. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3219819.322 ...

    2018

  133. [143]

    Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun, Jiashi Feng, and Kate Saenko. Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation. In AAAI, 2016. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 89

    2016

  134. [144]

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.05577

    arXiv:1811.05577 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.05577

    arXiv

  135. [145]

    Paul Tiwald, Alexandra Ebert, and Daniel T. Soukup. Representative & fair synthetic data. (arXiv:2104.03007), April 2021. arXiv:2104.03007 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2104 .03007, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2104.03007

    2021 doi arXiv

  136. [146]

    Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples, volume 1

    Richard Valliant, Jill A Dever, and Frauke Kreuter. Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples, volume 1. Springer, 2013

    2013

  137. [147]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.06608

    doi arXiv

  138. [148]

    Transfer learning with adaptive fine-tuning

    Grega Vrbancic and Vili Podgorelec. Transfer learning with adaptive fine-tuning. IEEE Ac- cess, 8:196197–196211, 2020. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9241777/ , doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034343

    2020

  139. [149]

    Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation

    Jian Shen, Yanru Qu, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 32(1), April 2018. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/11784, doi:10.160...

    2018 doi

  140. [150]

    Data Valuation in Machine Learning: ”Ingredients”, Strategies, and Open Challenges

    Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Xinyi Xu, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Data Valuation in Machine Learning: ”Ingredients”, Strategies, and Open Challenges. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5607–5614, Vienna, Austria, July ...

    2022 doi

  141. [151]

    Dynamic curriculum learning for imbalanced data classification

    Yiru Wang, Weihao Gan, Jie Yang, Wei Wu, and Junjie Yan. Dynamic curriculum learning for imbalanced data classification. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), page 5016–5025, Seoul, Korea (South), 2019. IEEE. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ doc...

    2019

  142. [152]

    Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , page 2300–2344, Seattle, ...

    2022

  143. [153]

    From virtual to reality: Fast adaptation of virtual object detectors to real domains

    Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. From virtual to reality: Fast adaptation of virtual object detectors to real domains. In BMVC, 2014

    2014

  144. [154]

    Dennis L. Wilson. Asymptotic properties of nearest neighbor rules using edited data. IEEE Transac- tions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , SMC-2(3):408–421, July 1972. URL: https://ieeexplore .ieee.org/document/4309137, doi:10.1109/TSMC.1972.4309137

    1972

  145. [155]

    Rossi, Sungchul Kim, and Shuai Li

    Yu Xia, Fang Kong, Tong Yu, Liya Guo, Ryan A. Rossi, Sungchul Kim, and Shuai Li. Which llm to play? convergence-aware online model selection with time-increasing bandits. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 , page 4059–4070, Singapore Singapore, May 2024. ACM. URL: h...

    2024

  146. [156]

    Removing biased data to improve fairness and accuracy

    Sahil Verma, Michael Ernst, and Rene Just. Removing biased data to improve fairness and accuracy. (arXiv:2102.03054), February 2021. arXiv:2102.03054 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.03054, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2102.03054

    2021 doi arXiv

  147. [157]

    Understanding the role of importance weighting for deep learning

    Da Xu, Yuting Ye, and Chuanwei Ruan. Understanding the role of importance weighting for deep learning. ArXiv, abs/2103.15209, 2021. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 231807280

    2021 arXiv

  148. [158]

    Chatterji, Saminul Haque, and Tatsunori Hashimoto

    Ke Alexander Wang, Niladri S. Chatterji, Saminul Haque, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Is importance weighting incompatible with interpolating classifiers? ArXiv, abs/2112.12986, 2021. URL: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245502568

    2021 arXiv

  149. [159]

    A survey on curriculum learning

    Xin Wang, Yudong Chen, and Wenwu Zhu. A survey on curriculum learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , page 1–1, 2021. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9392296/, doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3069908

    2021

  150. [160]

    Mind the class weight bias: Weighted maximum mean discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Hongliang Yan, Yukang Ding, Peihua Li, Qilong Wang, Yong Xu, and Wangmeng Zuo. Mind the class weight bias: Weighted maximum mean discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017

    2017

  151. [161]

    A survey on deep semi-supervised learning

    Xiangli Yang, Zixing Song, Irwin King, and Zenglin Xu. A survey on deep semi-supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 35(9):8934–8954, September 2023. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9941371/, doi:10.1109/TKDE.2022.3220219

    2023

  152. [162]

    Assessing the Contribution of Subject- matter Experts to Wikipedia

    Alex Yarovoy, Yiftach Nagar, Einat Minkov, and Ofer Arazy. Assessing the Contribution of Subject- matter Experts to Wikipedia. ACM Transactions on Social Computing , 3(4):1–36, December 2020. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3416853, doi:10.1145/3416853

    2020 doi

  153. [163]

    Williams, Kevin J

    Cameron J. Williams, Kevin J. Wilson, and Nina Wilson. A Comparison of Prior Elicitation Aggre- gation Using the Classical Method and SHELF. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , 184(3):920–940, 05 2021. arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jrsss...

    2021 doi

  154. [164]

    Reducing disparate exposure in ranking: A learning to rank ap- proach

    Meike Zehlike and Carlos Castillo. Reducing disparate exposure in ranking: A learning to rank ap- proach. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, page 2849–2855, Taipei Taiwan, April 2020. ACM. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3366424.3380048, doi:10.1145/3366424.3380048

    2020

  155. [165]

    How do data science workers collaborate? roles, workflows, and tools

    Amy X Zhang, Michael Muller, and Dakuo Wang. How do data science workers collaborate? roles, workflows, and tools. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 4(CSCW1):1–23, 2020

    2020

  156. [166]

    Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspective, January 2024

    Haoyi Xiong, Xuhong Li, Xiaofei Zhang, Jiamin Chen, Xinhao Sun, Yuchen Li, Zeyi Sun, and Mengnan Du. Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspective, January 2024. arXiv:2401.04374 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04374

    2024 arXiv

  157. [167]

    Lu, Mohamed Abdalla, Matthew McDermott, and Marzyeh Ghassemi

    Haoran Zhang, Amy X. Lu, Mohamed Abdalla, Matthew McDermott, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Hurtful words: quantifying biases in clinical contextual word embeddings. In Proceedings of the ACM Confer- ence on Health, Inference, and Learning , page 110–120, Toronto Ontario Canada, April ...

    2020

  158. [168]

    Forml: Learning to reweight data for fairness

    Bobby Yan, Skyler Seto, and Nicholas Apostoloff. Forml: Learning to reweight data for fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01719, 2022. [Distribution Statement A] Approved for public release and unlimited distribution. Page 90

    2022 arXiv

  159. [169]

    Synthesizing Type-Detection Logic for Rich Semantic Data Types using Open-source Code

    Cong Yan and Yeye He. Synthesizing Type-Detection Logic for Rich Semantic Data Types using Open-source Code. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data , SIGMOD ’18, pages 35–50, New York, NY, USA, May 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. U...

    2018

  160. [170]

    Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods

    Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Langu...

    2018

  161. [171]

    Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models

    Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning , page 12697–12706, 2021. URL: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/zhao21c/zhao21c.pdf. [Dist...

    2021

  162. [172]

    adversarial

    Yujia Zhou, Yan Liu, Xiaoxi Li, Jiajie Jin, Hongjin Qian, Zheng Liu, Chaozhuo Li, Zhicheng Dou, Tsung-Yi Ho, and Philip S. Yu. Trustworthiness in retrieval-augmented generation systems: A survey. (arXiv:2409.10102), September 2024. arXiv:2409.10102 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/...

    2024 arXiv

  163. [173]

    Data Valuation using Reinforcement Learning

    Jinsung Yoon, Sercan Arik, and Tomas Pfister. Data Valuation using Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 10842–10851. PMLR, November 2020. URL: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/yoon20a.html

    2020

  164. [176]

    Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning

    Brian Hu Zhang, Blake Lemoine, and Margaret Mitchell. Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, page 335–340, New Orleans LA USA, December 2018. ACM. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3278...

    2018

  165. [178]

    Towards Fair Deep Anomaly Detection

    Hongjing Zhang and Ian Davidson. Towards Fair Deep Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 138–148, Virtual Event Canada, March 2021. ACM. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445878 , doi: 10.1...

    2021

  166. [179]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=5NTt8GFjUHkr

    2023

  167. [184]

    data/" bc5cdr_dev = pd.read_csv(os.path.join(data_dir,

    Load in Data data_dir = "data/" bc5cdr_dev = pd.read_csv(os.path.join(data_dir, "bc5cdr_dataset_by_annotation_relation_development_set.csv"))bc5cdr_test = pd.read_csv(os.path.join(data_dir, "bc5cdr_dataset_by_annotation_relation_test_set.csv"))bc5cdr_train = pd.read_csv(os.pat...

  168. [185]

    ""An iterator that yields sentences (lists of str) from the dataset

    Creating Word Vector Embeddings from a Dataset with Word2Vec Why Train Our Own Embeddings? In this tutorial, we will train our own embeddings to address the unique challenges posed by the specialized language in the chemical datasets. Pre-trainedembeddings, typically derived f...

  169. [186]

    bc5cdr train dim=100

    Evaluating Bias in Word Embeddings Using the Word Embedding Fairness Evaluation (WEFE)Toolkit By now, youʼve built a corpus, trained a Word2Vec model to create word embeddings, and saved the model for future use. You may have even walked away andloaded the saved model when you...

    2023

  170. [187]

    chemdner_training_set_metadata.csv

    Load in Data Earlier in this notebook, we debiased word embeddings in the BC5CDR dataset. To conduct RSW, we can operate on the the metadata: no text or embeddingsrequired! As before, we'll assume the cleaned metadata files are downloaded to data/, a folder level with this not...

    2018

  171. [188]

    weight"] > 0, :]validation_metadata = validation_metadata.drop(

    Select Validation Set As discussed, RSW for selection, rather than weighting, imposes a constraint that weights be either 0 or 1/k, where k is the number of observations gathered forthe validation set. So, the weights are weights in a literal sense, but in a practical sense, t...

    2023

  172. [189]

    Weight Remaining Observations for Training To run RSW for weighting, not selection, we switch out the Boolean regularizer and run the algorithm on the remaining 3,200 observations that were not chosen tobe in the validation set. # AIM TWO # representative sample weighting on t...

    2023

  173. [2006]

    URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=tl7CDpmlgFwC

  174. [2018]

    URL: http://aclweb.org/anthology/N18-2003 , doi:10.18653/v1/N18-2003

    Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: http://aclweb.org/anthology/N18-2003 , doi:10.18653/v1/N18-2003

    2003 doi

  175. [2019]

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.04966

    arXiv:1901.04966 [cs, stat]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.04966

    1901 arXiv

  176. [2020]

    URL: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020

    Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020. acl-main.740, doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.740

    2020 doi

  177. [2022]

    URL: https://aclanthology.org/2022.naacl-m ain.167, doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.167

    Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: https://aclanthology.org/2022.naacl-m ain.167, doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.167

    2022 doi

  178. [2023]

    doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48177-3

    doi

  179. [2024]

    URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14735, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.14 735

    arXiv:2310.14735. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14735, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.14 735

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.