Automating Weak Label Generation for Data Programming with Clinicians in the Loop

Jean Park; Sydney Pugh; Kaustubh Sridhar; Mengyu Liu; Navish Yarna; Ramneet Kaur; Souradeep Dutta; Elena Bernardis; Oleg Sokolsky; Insup Lee

arXiv · 2407.07982

Automating Weak Label Generation for Data Programming with Clinicians in the Loop

Jean Park·Sydney Pugh·Kaustubh Sridhar·Mengyu Liu·Navish Yarna·Ramneet Kaur·Souradeep Dutta·Elena Bernardis·Oleg Sokolsky·Insup Lee

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are often data hungry and need high-quality labeled data in copious amounts for learning to converge. This is a challenge in the field of medicine since high quality labeled data is often scarce. Data programming has been the ray of hope in this regard, since it allows us to label unlabeled data using multiple weak labeling functions. Such functions are often supplied by a domain expert. Data-programming can combine multiple weak labeling functions and suggest labels better than simple majority voting over the different functions. However, it is not straightforward to express such weak labeling functions, especially in high-dimensional settings such as images and time-series data. What we propose in this paper is a way to bypass this issue, using distance functions. In high-dimensional spaces, it is easier to find meaningful distance metrics which can generalize across different labeling tasks. We propose an algorithm that queries an expert for labels of a few representative samples of the dataset. These samples are carefully chosen by the algorithm to capture the distribution of the dataset. The labels assigned by the expert on the representative subset induce a labeling on the full dataset, thereby generating weak labels to be used in the data programming pipeline. In our medical time series case study, labeling a subset of 50 to 130 out of 3,265 samples showed 17-28% improvement in accuracy and 13-28% improvement in F1 over the baseline using clinician-defined labeling functions. In our medical image case study, labeling a subset of about 50 to 120 images from 6,293 unlabeled medical images using our approach showed significant improvement over the baseline method, Snuba, with an increase of approximately 5-15% in accuracy and 12-19% in F1 score.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jean Park, Sydney Pugh, Kaustubh Sridhar, Mengyu Liu, Navish Yarna, Ramneet Kaur, Souradeep Dutta, Elena Bernardis, Oleg Sokolsky, Insup Lee. 2024-07-10. Automating Weak Label Generation for Data Programming with Clinicians in the Loop. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07982

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A Probabilistic Approach for Model Alignment with Human Comparisons

A growing trend involves integrating human knowledge into learning frameworks, leveraging subtle human feedback to refine AI models. While these approaches have shown promising results in practice, the theoretical understanding of when and why such approaches are effective remains limited. This work takes steps toward developing a theoretical framework for analyzing the conditions under which human comparisons can enhance the traditional supervised learning process. Specifically, this paper studies the effective use of noisy-labeled data and human comparison data to address challenges arising from noisy environment and high-dimensional models. We propose a two-stage "Supervised Learning+Learning from Human Feedback" (SL+LHF) framework that connects machine learning with human feedback through a probabilistic bisection approach. The two-stage framework first learns low-dimensional representations from noisy-labeled data via an SL procedure and then uses human comparisons to improve the model alignment. To examine the efficacy of the alignment phase, we introduce a concept, termed the "label-noise-to-comparison-accuracy" (LNCA) ratio. This paper identifies from a theoretical perspective the conditions under which the "SL+LHF" framework outperforms the pure SL approach; we then leverage this LNCA ratio to highlight the advantage of incorporating human evaluators in reducing sample complexity. We validate the framework on a real high-dimensional crowdfunding-prediction task: under a fixed query budget, trading labels for comparisons improves accuracy precisely when labels are scarce, and the findings hold when the evaluator is replaced by real large language models. A study conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) further validates the model primitives.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

An Initial Introduction to Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has exploded in popularity in recent years. While numerous approaches have been developed, they can be broadly categorized into three main types: centralized training and execution (CTE), centralized training for decentralized execution (CTDE), and decentralized training and execution (DTE). CTE methods assume centralization during training and execution (e.g., with fast, free, and perfect communication) and have the most information during execution. CTDE methods are the most common, as they leverage centralized information during training while enabling decentralized execution -- using only information available to that agent during execution. Decentralized training and execution methods make the fewest assumptions and are often simple to implement. This text is an introduction to cooperative MARL -- MARL in which all agents share a single, joint reward. It is meant to explain the setting, basic concepts, and common methods for the CTE, CTDE, and DTE settings. It does not cover all work in cooperative MARL as the area is quite extensive. I have included work that I believe is important for understanding the main concepts in the area and apologize to those that I have omitted. Topics include simple applications of single-agent methods to CTE as well as some more scalable methods that exploit the multi-agent structure, independent Q-learning and policy gradient methods and their extensions, as well as value function factorization methods including the well-known VDN, QMIX, and QPLEX approaches, and centralized critic methods including MADDPG, COMA, and MAPPO. I also discuss common misconceptions, the relationship between different approaches, and some open questions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

TIDE: Temporal Incremental Draft Engine for Self-Improving LLM Inference

Speculative decoding can substantially accelerate LLM inference, but realizing its benefits in practice is challenging due to evolving workloads. We present TIDE (Temporal Incremental Draft Engine), a serving-engine-native framework that integrates online draft adaptation directly into high-performance LLM inference systems. TIDE reuses target model's intermediate hidden states generated during inference as training signals for draft adaptation, thereby avoiding additional target model computation and serving-time overhead. It employs adaptive runtime control to activate speculation and draft model training only when beneficial. TIDE exploits heterogeneous clusters by mapping inference and training to appropriate GPU classes. Across diverse real-world workloads, TIDE achieves up to 1.66$\times$ throughput over no-speculation baselines while recovering performance on misaligned workloads where static draft models degrade throughput. TIDE also reduces training time by up to 3.02$\times$ and storage requirements by 24$\times$ compared to existing draft training approaches, and improves system throughput by up to 1.22$\times$ on heterogeneous GPU clusters.

cs.LG↗