Daily Papers

High-quality data annotation is an essential but laborious and costly aspect of developing machine learning-based software. We explore the inherent tradeoff between annotation accuracy and cost by detecting and removing minority reports -- instances where annotators provide incorrect responses -- that indicate unnecessary redundancy in task assignments. We propose an approach to prune potentially redundant annotation task assignments before they are executed by estimating the likelihood of an annotator disagreeing with the majority vote for a given task. Our approach is informed by an empirical analysis over computer vision datasets annotated by a professional data annotation platform, which reveals that the likelihood of a minority report event is dependent primarily on image ambiguity, worker variability, and worker fatigue. Simulations over these datasets show that we can reduce the number of annotations required by over 60% with a small compromise in label quality, saving approximately 6.6 days-equivalent of labor. Our approach provides annotation service platforms with a method to balance cost and dataset quality. Machine learning practitioners can tailor annotation accuracy levels according to specific application needs, thereby optimizing budget allocation while maintaining the data quality necessary for critical settings like autonomous driving technology.

Run the same LLM agent on the same task twice: do you get the same behavior? We find the answer is often no. In a study of 3,000 agent runs across three models (Llama 3.1 70B, GPT-4o, and Claude Sonnet 4.5) on HotpotQA, we observe that ReAct-style agents produce 2.0--4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs on average, even with identical inputs. More importantly, this variance predicts failure: tasks with consistent behavior (leq2 unique paths) achieve 80--92% accuracy, while highly inconsistent tasks (geq6 unique paths) achieve only 25--60%, a 32--55 percentage point gap depending on model. We trace variance to early decisions: 69% of divergence occurs at step 2, the first search query. Our results suggest that monitoring behavioral consistency during execution could enable early error detection and improve agent reliability.

Blazars, a class of active galactic nuclei (AGN) powered by supermassive black holes, are known for their remarkable variability across multiple timescales and wavelengths. With advancements in both ground- and space-based telescopes, our understanding of AGN central engines has significantly improved. However, the mechanisms driving this variability remain elusive, and continue to fascinate both theorists and observers alike. The primary objective of this study is to constrain the X-ray variability properties of the TeV blazar PKS 2155-304. We conduct a comprehensive X-ray spectral and timing analysis, focusing on both long-term and intra-day variability. This analysis uses data from 22 epochs of XMM-Newton EPIC-pn observations, collected over 15 years (2000-2014). To investigate the variability of the source, we applied both timing and spectral analyses. For the timing analysis, we estimated fractional variability, variability amplitude, minimum variability timescales, flux distribution, and power spectral density (PSD). In the spectral analysis, we fitted the X-ray spectra using power-law, log-parabola, and broken power-law (BPL) models to determine the best-fitting parameters. Additionally, we studied the hardness ratio (HR). We observed moderate intra-day variability in most of the light curves. Seven out of the twenty-two observations showed a clear bimodal flux distribution, indicating the presence of two distinct flux states. Our analysis revealed a variable power-law PSD slope. Most HR plots did not show significant variation with flux, except for one observation (OBSID 0124930501), where HR increased with flux (Count/s). The fitted X-ray spectra favored the BPL model for the majority of observations. The findings of this work shed light on the intraday variability of blazars, providing insights into the non-thermal jet processes that drive the observed flux variations.

Deep learning is often criticized by two serious issues which rarely exist in natural nervous systems: overfitting and catastrophic forgetting. It can even memorize randomly labelled data, which has little knowledge behind the instance-label pairs. When a deep network continually learns over time by accommodating new tasks, it usually quickly overwrites the knowledge learned from previous tasks. Referred to as the {\it neural variability}, it is well-known in neuroscience that human brain reactions exhibit substantial variability even in response to the same stimulus. This mechanism balances accuracy and plasticity/flexibility in the motor learning of natural nervous systems. Thus it motivates us to design a similar mechanism named {\it artificial neural variability} (ANV), which helps artificial neural networks learn some advantages from ``natural'' neural networks. We rigorously prove that ANV plays as an implicit regularizer of the mutual information between the training data and the learned model. This result theoretically guarantees ANV a strictly improved generalizability, robustness to label noise, and robustness to catastrophic forgetting. We then devise a {\it neural variable risk minimization} (NVRM) framework and {\it neural variable optimizers} to achieve ANV for conventional network architectures in practice. The empirical studies demonstrate that NVRM can effectively relieve overfitting, label noise memorization, and catastrophic forgetting at negligible costs. Code: \url{https://github.com/zeke-xie/artificial-neural-variability-for-deep-learning.

Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. However, there are many analytic choices which must be made to produce these samples. Though many of these choices are defensible, their impact on sample quality is poorly understood. I map out these analytic choices and demonstrate how a very small number of decisions can dramatically change the correspondence between silicon samples and human data. Configurations (N = 252) varied substantially in their capacity to estimate (i) rank ordering of participants, (ii) response distributions, and (iii) between-scale correlations. Most critically, configurations were not consistent in quality: those that performed well on one dimension often performed poorly on another, implying that there is no "one-size-fits-all" configuration that optimises the accuracy of these samples. I call for greater attention to the threat of analytic flexibility in using silicon samples.

Typical neural network trainings have substantial variance in test-set performance between repeated runs, impeding hyperparameter comparison and training reproducibility. We present the following results towards understanding this variation. (1) Despite having significant variance on their test-sets, we demonstrate that standard CIFAR-10 and ImageNet trainings have very little variance in their performance on the test-distributions from which those test-sets are sampled, suggesting that variance is less of a practical issue than previously thought. (2) We present a simplifying statistical assumption which closely approximates the structure of the test-set accuracy distribution. (3) We argue that test-set variance is inevitable in the following two senses. First, we show that variance is largely caused by high sensitivity of the training process to initial conditions, rather than by specific sources of randomness like the data order and augmentations. Second, we prove that variance is unavoidable given the observation that ensembles of trained networks are well-calibrated. (4) We conduct preliminary studies of distribution-shift, fine-tuning, data augmentation and learning rate through the lens of variance between runs.

Machine learning models are often used to inform real world risk assessment tasks: predicting consumer default risk, predicting whether a person suffers from a serious illness, or predicting a person's risk to appear in court. Given multiple models that perform almost equally well for a prediction task, to what extent do predictions vary across these models? If predictions are relatively consistent for similar models, then the standard approach of choosing the model that optimizes a penalized loss suffices. But what if predictions vary significantly for similar models? In machine learning, this is referred to as predictive multiplicity i.e. the prevalence of conflicting predictions assigned by near-optimal competing models. In this paper, we present a framework for measuring predictive multiplicity in probabilistic classification (predicting the probability of a positive outcome). We introduce measures that capture the variation in risk estimates over the set of competing models, and develop optimization-based methods to compute these measures efficiently and reliably for convex empirical risk minimization problems. We demonstrate the incidence and prevalence of predictive multiplicity in real-world tasks. Further, we provide insight into how predictive multiplicity arises by analyzing the relationship between predictive multiplicity and data set characteristics (outliers, separability, and majority-minority structure). Our results emphasize the need to report predictive multiplicity more widely.