While data selection methods have been studied extensively in active learning, data pruning, and data augmentation settings, there is little evidence for the efficacy of these methods in industry scale settings, particularly in low-resource languages. Our work presents ways of assessing prospective training examples in those settings for their "usefulness" or "difficulty". We also demonstrate how these measures can be used in selecting important examples for training supervised machine learning models. We primarily experiment with entropy and Error L2-Norm (EL2N) scores. We use these metrics to curate high quality datasets from a large pool of \textit{Weak Signal Labeled} data, which assigns no-defect high confidence hypotheses during inference as ground truth labels. We then conduct training data augmentation experiments using these de-identified datasets and demonstrate that score-based selection can result in a 2% decrease in semantic error rate and 4%-7% decrease in domain classification error rate when compared to the baseline technique of random selection.

Finetuning large language models inflates the costs of NLU applications and remains the bottleneck of development cycles. Recent works in computer vision use data pruning to reduce training time. Pruned data selection with static methods is based on a score calculated for each training example prior to finetuning, which involves important computational overhead. Moreover, the score may not necessarily be representative of sample importance throughout the entire training duration. We propose to address these issues with a refined version of dynamic data pruning, a curriculum which periodically scores and discards unimportant examples during finetuning. Our method leverages an EL2N metric that we extend to the joint intent and slot classification task, and an initial finetuning phase on the full train set. Our results on the GLUE benchmark and four joint NLU datasets show a better time-accuracy trade-off compared to static methods. Our method preserves full accuracy while training on 50% of the data points and reduces computational times by up to 41%. If we tolerate instead a minor drop of accuracy of 1%, we can prune 80% of the training examples for a reduction in finetuning time reaching 66%.

The paper 'Deep Learning on a Data Diet' by Paul et al. (2021) introduces two innovative metrics for pruning datasets during the training of neural networks. While we are able to replicate the results for the EL2N score at epoch 20, the same cannot be said for the GraNd score at initialization. The GraNd scores later in training provide useful pruning signals, however. The GraNd score at initialization calculates the average gradient norm of an input sample across multiple randomly initialized models before any training has taken place. Our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the GraNd score at initialization and the input norm of a sample, suggesting that the latter could have been a cheap new baseline for data pruning. Unfortunately, neither the GraNd score at initialization nor the input norm surpasses random pruning in performance. This contradicts one of the findings in Paul et al. (2021). We were unable to reproduce their CIFAR-10 results using both an updated version of the original JAX repository and in a newly implemented PyTorch codebase. An investigation of the underlying JAX/FLAX code from 2021 surfaced a bug in the checkpoint restoring code that was fixed in April 2021 (https://github.com/google/flax/commit/28fbd95500f4bf2f9924d2560062fa50e919b1a5).

Current pre-trained language models rely on large datasets for achieving state-of-the-art performance. However, past research has shown that not all examples in a dataset are equally important during training. In fact, it is sometimes possible to prune a considerable fraction of the training set while maintaining the test performance. Established on standard vision benchmarks, two gradient-based scoring metrics for finding important examples are GraNd and its estimated version, EL2N. In this work, we employ these two metrics for the first time in NLP. We demonstrate that these metrics need to be computed after at least one epoch of fine-tuning and they are not reliable in early steps. Furthermore, we show that by pruning a small portion of the examples with the highest GraNd/EL2N scores, we can not only preserve the test accuracy, but also surpass it. This paper details adjustments and implementation choices which enable GraNd and EL2N to be applied to NLP.