Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39451911›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Information FOMO: The Unhealthy Fear of Missing Out on Information-A Method for Removing Misleading Data for Healthier Models.

Ethan Pickering, Themistoklis P Sapsis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ethan PickeringDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4485-6359
Themistoklis P SapsisDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0302-0691

Funding

AFOSR FA9550-21-1-0058AFOSR FA9550-23-1-0517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misleading or unnecessary data can have out-sized impacts on the health or accuracy of Machine Learning (ML) models. We present a Bayesian sequential selection method, akin to Bayesian experimental design, that identifies critically important information within a dataset while ignoring data that are either misleading or bring unnecessary complexity to the surrogate model of choice. Our method improves sample-wise error convergence and eliminates instances where more data lead to worse performance and instabilities of the surrogate model, often termed sample-wise "double descent". We find these instabilities are a result of the complexity of the underlying map and are linked to extreme events and heavy tails. Our approach has two key features. First, the selection algorithm dynamically couples the chosen model and data. Data is chosen based on its merits towards improving the selected model, rather than being compared strictly against other data. Second, a natural convergence of the method removes the need for dividing the data into training, testing, and validation sets. Instead, the selection metric inherently assesses testing and validation error through global statistics of the model. This ensures that key information is never wasted in testing or validation. The method is applied using both Gaussian process regression and deep neural network surrogate models.

Indexed as

Bayesian sequential selectiondeep neural networksdouble descentGaussian process regressionmachine learningmisleading datasample-wise error convergence

Identifiers

PMID39451911
PMCPMC11507899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.