弱监督

Boosting is an extremely successful idea, allowing one to combine multiple low accuracy classifiers into a much more accurate voting classifier. In this work, we present a new and surprisingly simple Boosting algorithm that obtains a provably optimal sample complexity. Sample optimal Boosting algorithms have only recently been developed, and our new algorithm has the fastest runtime among all such algorithms and is the simplest to describe: Partition your training data into 5 disjoint pieces of equal size, run AdaBoost on each, and combine the resulting classifiers via a majority vote. In addition to this theoretical contribution, we also perform the first empirical comparison of the proposed sample optimal Boosting algorithms. Our pilot empirical study suggests that our new algorithm might outperform previous algorithms on large data sets.

Benchmark datasets in computer vision often contain off-topic images, near duplicates, and label errors, leading to inaccurate estimates of model performance. In this paper, we revisit the task of data cleaning and formalize it as either a ranking problem, which significantly reduces human inspection effort, or a scoring problem, which allows for automated decisions based on score distributions. We find that a specific combination of context-aware self-supervised representation learning and distance-based indicators is effective in finding issues without annotation biases. This methodology, which we call SelfClean, surpasses state-of-the-art performance in detecting off-topic images, near duplicates, and label errors within widely-used image datasets, such as ImageNet-1k, Food-101N, and STL-10, both for synthetic issues and real contamination. We apply the detailed method to multiple image benchmarks, identify up to 16% of issues, and confirm an improvement in evaluation reliability upon cleaning. The official implementation can be found at: https://github.com/Digital-Dermatology/SelfClean.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in applications where LLM inputs may span many different tasks. Recent work has found that the choice of LLM is consequential, and different LLMs may be good for different input samples. Prior approaches have thus explored how engineers might select an LLM to use for each sample (i.e. _routing_). While existing routing methods mostly require training auxiliary models on human-annotated data, our work explores whether it is possible to perform _unsupervised_ routing. We propose Smoothie, a weak supervision-inspired routing approach that requires no labeled data. Given a set of outputs from different LLMs, Smoothie constructs a latent variable graphical model over embedding representations of observable LLM outputs and unknown “true” outputs. Using this graphical model, we estimate sample-dependent quality scores for each LLM, and route each sample to the LLM with the highest corresponding score. We find that Smoothie's LLM quality-scores correlate with ground-truth model quality (correctly identifying the optimal model on 9/14 tasks), and that Smoothie outperforms baselines for routing by up to 10 points accuracy.

Weak supervision (WS) is a popular approach for label-efficient learning, leveraging diverse sources of noisy but inexpensive *weak labels* to automatically annotate training data. Despite its wide usage, WS and its practical value are challenging to benchmark due to the many knobs in its setup, including: data sources, labeling functions (LFs), aggregation techniques (called label models), and end model pipelines. Existing evaluation suites tend to be limited, focusing on particular components or specialized use cases. Moreover, they often involve simplistic benchmark tasks or de-facto LF sets that are suboptimally written, producing insights that may not generalize to real-world settings. We address these limitations by introducing a new benchmark, BOXWRENCH, designed to more accurately reflect *real-world usages of WS*. This benchmark features tasks with (1) higher class cardinality and imbalance, (2) notable domain expertise requirements, and (3) opportunities to re-use LFs across parallel multilingual corpora. For all tasks, LFs are written using a careful procedure aimed at mimicking real-world settings. In contrast to existing WS benchmarks, we show that supervised learning requires substantial amounts (1000+) of labeled examples to match WS in many settings.

The Segmentation Anything Model (SAM) requires labor-intensive data labeling. We present Unsupervised SAM (UnSAM) for promptable and automatic whole-image segmentation that does not require human annotations. UnSAM utilizes a divide-and-conquer strategy to “discover” the hierarchical structure of visual scenes. We first leverage top-down clustering methods to partition an unlabeled image into instance/semantic level segments. For all pixels within a segment, a bottom-up clustering method is employed to iteratively merge them into larger groups, thereby forming a hierarchical structure. These unsupervised multi-granular masks are then utilized to supervise model training. Evaluated across seven popular datasets, UnSAM achieves competitive results with the supervised counterpart SAM, and surpasses the previous state-of-the-art in unsupervised segmentation by 11% in terms of AR. Moreover, we show that supervised SAM can also benefit from our self-supervised labels. By integrating our unsupervised pseudo masks into SA-1B’s ground-truth masks and training UnSAM with only 1% of SA-1B, a lightly semi-supervised UnSAM can often segment entities overlooked by supervised SAM, exceeding SAM’s AR by over 6.7% and AP by 3.9% on SA-1B.

Programmatic Weak Supervision (PWS) enables supervised model training without direct access to ground truth labels, utilizing weak labels from heuristics, crowdsourcing, or pre-trained models. However, the absence of ground truth complicates model evaluation, as traditional metrics such as accuracy, precision, and recall cannot be directly calculated. In this work, we present a novel method to address this challenge by framing model evaluation as a partial identification problem and estimating performance bounds using Fréchet bounds. Our approach derives reliable bounds on key metrics without requiring labeled data, overcoming core limitations in current weak supervision evaluation techniques. Through scalable convex optimization, we obtain accurate and computationally efficient bounds for metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, even in high-dimensional settings. This framework offers a robust approach to assessing model quality without ground truth labels, enhancing the practicality of weakly supervised learning for real-world applications.

Large pretrained models can be used as annotators, helping replace or augment crowdworkers and enabling distilling generalist models into smaller specialist models. Unfortunately, this comes at a cost: employing top-of-the-line models often requires paying thousands of dollars for API calls, while the resulting datasets are static and challenging to audit. To address these challenges, we propose a simple alternative: rather than directly querying labels from pretrained models, we task models to generate programs that can produce labels. These programs can be stored and applied locally, re-used and extended, and cost orders of magnitude less. Our system, $\textbf{Alchemist}$, obtains comparable to or better performance than large language model-based annotation in a range of tasks for a fraction of the cost: on average, improvements amount to a $\textbf{12.9}$% enhancement while the total labeling costs across all datasets are reduced by a factor of approximately $\textbf{500}\times$.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Recent advances in large language models have shown capabilities that are extraordinary and near-superhuman. These models operate with such complexity that reliably evaluating and aligning them proves challenging for humans. This leads to the natural question: can guidance from weak models (like humans) adequately direct the capabilities of strong models? In a recent and somewhat surprising work, Burns et al. (2023) empirically demonstrated that when strong models (like GPT-4) are finetuned using labels generated by weak supervisors (like GPT-2), the strong models outperform their weaker counterparts---a phenomenon they term *weak-to-strong generalization*. In this work, we present a theoretical framework for understanding weak-to-strong generalization. Specifically, we show that the improvement in performance achieved by strong models over their weaker counterparts is quantified by the *misfit error* incurred by the strong model on labels generated by the weaker model. Our theory reveals several curious algorithmic insights. For instance, we can predict the amount by which the strong model will improve over the weak model, and also choose among different weak models to train the strong model, based on its misfit error. We validate our theoretical findings through various empirical assessments.

Strong student models can learn from weaker teachers: when trained on the predictions of a weaker model, a strong pretrained student can learn to correct the weak model’s errors and generalize to examples where the teacher is not confident, even when these examples are excluded from training. This enables learning from cheap, incomplete, and possibly incorrect label information, such as coarse logical rules or the generations of a language model. We show that existing weak supervision theory results fail to account for both of these effects, which we call pseudolabel correction and coverage expansion, respectively. We give a new bound based on expansion properties of the data distribution and student hypothesis class that directly accounts for pseudolabel correction and coverage expansion. Our bound generalizes results from the co-training and self-training literature and captures the intuition that weak-to-strong generalization occurs when the mistakes of the weak model are hard for the strong model to fit without incurring additional error. We show that these expansion properties can be checked from finite data and give empirical evidence that they hold in practice.