Improving Data Quality with Training Dynamics of Gradient Boosting Decision Trees
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Real world datasets contain incorrectly labeled instances that hamper the performance of the model and, in particular, the ability to generalize out of distribution. Also, each example might have different contribution towards learning. This motivates studies to better understanding of the role of data instances with respect to their contribution in good metrics in models. In this paper we propose a method based on metrics computed from training dynamics of Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDTs) to assess the behavior of each training example. We focus on datasets containing mostly tabular or structured data, for which the use of Decision Trees ensembles are still the state-of-the-art in terms of performance. Our methods achieved the best results overall when compared with confident learning, direct heuristics and a robust boosting algorithm. We show results on detecting noisy labels in order clean datasets, improving models' metrics in synthetic and real public datasets, as well as on a industry case in which we deployed a model based on the proposed solution.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Oct 2022.
Builds on
19 of 49 references.
References · 19
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
- 2018An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learningcited by 678
- 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
- 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 528
- 2019Does Learning Require Memorization? A Short Tale about a Long Tailcited by 460
- 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 425
- 2020Early-Learning Regularization Prevents Memorization of Noisy Labelscited by 416
- 2019Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labelscited by 413
- 2020Identifying Mislabeled Data using the Area Under the Margin Rankingcited by 261
- 2019Understanding and Utilizing Deep Neural Networks Trained with Noisy Labelscited by 209
- 2019REPAIR: Removing Representation Bias by Dataset Resamplingcited by 157
7 more
- 2018How Complex is your classification problem? A survey on measuring classification complexitycited by 66
- 2016Loss factorization, weakly supervised learning and label noise robustnesscited by 24
- 2018Are All Training Examples Created Equal? An Empirical Studycited by 16
- 2013Double Ramp Loss Based Reject Option Classifiercited by 9
- 2021Assessing the Quality of the Datasets by Identifying Mislabeled Samplescited by 5
- 2021Training Deep Networks from Zero to Hero: avoiding pitfalls and going beyondcited by 3
- 2020Automatic Feasibility Study via Data Quality Analysis for ML: A Case-Study on Label Noisecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.
3 papers.
- 2024Decoupling Decision-Making in Fraud Prevention through Classifier Calibration for Business Logic Actioncited by 1
- 2024Training Gradient Boosted Decision Trees on Tabular Data Containing Label Noise for Classification Taskscited by 1
- 2024Selfish Evolution: Making Discoveries in Extreme Label Noise with the Help of Overfitting Dynamicscited by 0
- 2024Selfish Evolution: Making Discoveries in Extreme Label Noise with the Help of Overfitting Dynamics26 Nov 2024
- 2024Training Gradient Boosted Decision Trees on Tabular Data Containing Label Noise for Classification Tasks13 Sep 2024
- 2024Decoupling Decision-Making in Fraud Prevention through Classifier Calibration for Business Logic Action10 Jan 2024