Authors:
(1) Wanru Zhao, University of Cambridge, Shanghai AI Laboratory with Equal contribution;
(2) Yaxin Du, Shanghai Jiao Tong University with Equal contribution;
(3) Nicholas D. Lane, University of Cambridge and Flower Labs;
(4) Siheng Chen, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University;
(5) Yanfeng Wang, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Motivation and Setup: How low-quality data affects the performance of Collaborative Training
Proposed Workflow for Data Quality Control
Experiments
Conclusion and Future Work, and References
A. Related Work
B. Heterogeneity Settings
C. Experimental Details
D. Ablation study of Unified Scoring with Anchor Data
E. Examples for low-and high- quality Data 2 MOTIVATION AND SETUP: HOW LOW-QUALITY DATA AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE OF COLLABORATIVE TRAINING In our paper, we identify two unique challenges for federated fine-tuning of LLMs in terms of data quality. 1) Real low-quality data Firstly, we aim to highlight three prevalent patterns of low-quality data observed in real-world corpora: cut, deletion and exchange. The cut category encompasses scenarios where content is truncated due to word limit constraints, deletion pertains to instances where critical terminologies are absent from the corpus, and exchange refers to examples containing entirely incorrect information. We provide specific examples of these categories in Appendix E. 2) Quality heterogeneity Quality heterogeneity refers to the variability in the quality of data collection across different clients in federated learning. Given that federated learning often encompasses a vast number of clients, each with varying capabilities in data synthesis, it is impractical to assume uniformity in data quality among all participants. Consequently, some clients may possess a higher proportion of low-quality data compared to others, highlighting the absence of a uniform standard for data sample quality across all participants. We provide two Non-IID settings in Appendix B. In our preliminary experiments, we consider the two factors above, adjust the proportion of low-quality data of composition of PMCLLama (Wu et al., 2023) and Medalpacaflashcards (Han et al., 2023) datasets in federated training, shown in Figure 1. Higher scores indicate better performance (for more details about the metrics, see Appendix C.2). The key observation is, the quality of the training data has a significant effect on the performance of collaborative training: low-quality data consistently lead to worse influence on all the metrics. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Wanru Zhao, University of Cambridge, Shanghai AI Laboratory with Equal contribution; (2) Yaxin Du, Shanghai Jiao Tong University with Equal contribution; (3) Nicholas D. Lane, University of Cambridge and Flower Labs; (4) Siheng Chen, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University; (5) Yanfeng Wang, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Authors: Authors: (1) Wanru Zhao, University of Cambridge, Shanghai AI Laboratory with Equal contribution; (2) Yaxin Du, Shanghai Jiao Tong University with Equal contribution; (3) Nicholas D. Lane, University of Cambridge and Flower Labs; (4) Siheng Chen, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University; (5) Yanfeng Wang, Shanghai AI Laboratory and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Motivation and Setup: How low-quality data affects the performance of Collaborative Training Proposed Workflow for Data Quality Control Experiments Conclusion and Future Work, and References A. Related Work B. Heterogeneity Settings C. Experimental Details D. Ablation study of Unified Scoring with Anchor Data E. Examples for low-and high- quality Data Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Motivation and Setup: How low-quality data affects the performance of Collaborative Training Motivation and Setup: How low-quality data affects the performance of Collaborative Training Proposed Workflow for Data Quality Control Proposed Workflow for Data Quality Control Experiments Experiments Conclusion and Future Work, and References Conclusion and Future Work, and References A. Related Work A. Related Work B. Heterogeneity Settings B. Heterogeneity Settings C. Experimental Details C. Experimental Details D. Ablation study of Unified Scoring with Anchor Data D. Ablation study of Unified Scoring with Anchor Data E. Examples for low-and high- quality Data E. Examples for low-and high- quality Data 2 MOTIVATION AND SETUP: HOW LOW-QUALITY DATA AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE OF COLLABORATIVE TRAINING In our paper, we identify two unique challenges for federated fine-tuning of LLMs in terms of data quality. 1) Real low-quality data Firstly, we aim to highlight three prevalent patterns of low-quality data observed in real-world corpora: cut, deletion and exchange. The cut category encompasses scenarios where content is truncated due to word limit constraints, deletion pertains to instances where critical terminologies are absent from the corpus, and exchange refers to examples containing entirely incorrect information. We provide specific examples of these categories in Appendix E. Real low-quality data 2) Quality heterogeneity Quality heterogeneity refers to the variability in the quality of data collection across different clients in federated learning. Given that federated learning often encompasses a vast number of clients, each with varying capabilities in data synthesis, it is impractical to assume uniformity in data quality among all participants. Consequently, some clients may possess a higher proportion of low-quality data compared to others, highlighting the absence of a uniform standard for data sample quality across all participants. We provide two Non-IID settings in Appendix B. Quality heterogeneity Quality In our preliminary experiments, we consider the two factors above, adjust the proportion of low-quality data of composition of PMCLLama (Wu et al., 2023) and Medalpacaflashcards (Han et al., 2023) datasets in federated training, shown in Figure 1. Higher scores indicate better performance (for more details about the metrics, see Appendix C.2). The key observation is, the quality of the training data has a significant effect on the performance of collaborative training: low-quality data consistently lead to worse influence on all the metrics. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Enhancing Data Quality: Conclusion and Future Work, and References

Enhancing Data Quality in Federated Fine-Tuning of Foundation Models: Experimental Details

Computational.TECH

Too Long; Didn't Read

Get Free Unlimited IP Geo Data With IPinfo Lite

Enhancing Data Quality: How low-quality data affects the performance of Collaborative Training

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Data-centric Approach to Class-specific Bias in Image Data Augmentation: Abstract and Intro

AI as the "Bad Student" in Class

AI Will Not Kill Quantum Computing

AI's Unstoppable Energy Appetite: A Looming Crisis

Beyond the Algorithm: How Training Data Can Make or Break a Generative AI Model

Efficient AI Model Training: LongLoRA's Breakthrough in Handling Longer Texts

A Data-centric Approach to Class-specific Bias in Image Data Augmentation: Abstract and Intro

AI as the "Bad Student" in Class

AI Will Not Kill Quantum Computing

AI's Unstoppable Energy Appetite: A Looming Crisis

Beyond the Algorithm: How Training Data Can Make or Break a Generative AI Model

Efficient AI Model Training: LongLoRA's Breakthrough in Handling Longer Texts

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps