sandeep85's picture
Expand example: data and card
8593faf verified
|
Raw History Blame Contribute Delete
6.51 kB
metadata
license: cc-by-sa-4.0
language:
  - en
task_categories:
  - token-classification
  - question-answering
tags:
  - synthetic
  - datainventor
  - expand
size_categories:
  - n<1K
configs:
  - config_name: like-yours
    data_files:
      - split: train
        path: data/like-yours.jsonl
  - config_name: related-tasks
    data_files:
      - split: train
        path: data/related-tasks.jsonl
pretty_name: 'DataInventor Expand: typed extraction'

DataInventor Expand: typed extraction

Synthetic typed-extraction cases in the format of LocalLLaMA/typed-extraction: a document (state), a map of typed fields to extract (fields), and the gold answer for each (gold: value, source, alts and character spans). It was grown with the Expand mode of DataInventor, which takes a small dataset you own and writes more rows in the same schema. 167 rows in total; each growth mode is a separate config.

Seed

16 rows of the train split of LocalLLaMA/typed-extraction (9,642 cases): four each from the squad2, drop, lease and wikipedia families. Released under CC BY-SA 4.0 like the seed.

Engine

openai/gpt-oss-20b on DeepInfra through the Hugging Face router (reasoning effort low). Each row is written in two calls: the input fields first, then the output fields given that input and three full seed rows as examples.

Checks applied to every row

  • Schema: the seed's columns and types; n_fields is recomputed from fields; fields and gold must have the same keys.
  • Entry structure, measured from the seed: every fields entry has name, type, instructions and options, with type one of the seed's (text, number, date, duration); every gold entry has value, source, alts and spans, with source one of the seed's (span, computed, normalised). Flat or partial entries are rejected; extra keys are dropped.
  • Values fit their field type: numbers for number and duration, ISO dates for date (or null).
  • Spans: a span answer must appear in the document (text exactly or ignoring case, numbers as written, with or without thousands separators), and its character offsets are recomputed from the document; the model's offsets are never kept. Empty strings become null.
  • Text: degenerate text, prompt leaks, placeholders, tables and code fences (the seed has none), and length bounds from the seed (in like-yours; per-task bounds from the plan in related-tasks).
  • Duplicates: exact and near-duplicates of seed rows and of other new rows, and 13-gram overlap with six public benchmarks.

Rows that fail any check are rejected and counted by reason; the counts are below.

Configs

like-yours (92 rows)

More data like yours: new rows on the seed's own topics, three rotating seed rows shown as examples for each.

  • Plan: Historical events, Sports statistics, Real estate contracts, Wikipedia city profiles, Film metadata, Medical statistics, War history, Business contracts, Government appointments, Economic data, Demographics, Legal documents.
  • Attempts: 159. Kept by the run: 100. Rejected during the run:
    • span not in the document: 30
    • malformed entry in gold: 8
    • entry value not in the seed (fields.type): 3
    • rule broken: 3
    • too short: 2
    • entry value not in the seed (gold.source): 2
    • broken JSON: 1
    • missing a field: 1
    • malformed entry in fields: 1
  • Removed after the run, by a check added after it finished or by hand review: 8
    • span not in the document: 7
    • removed after hand review: 1
  • Near-duplicates: mean highest word-3-gram overlap with a seed row 0.051, with another new row 0.065; no row at 0.5 or above.
  • Topic spread (topic labels from the seed, one model call per 25 rows): 2.78 bits in the seed, 3.17 bits in the new rows.
  • Time 2.9 min; endpoint cost $0.0412.

related-tasks (75 rows)

Related tasks: six other tasks from the same domain, written in the same fields and language.

  • Plan: Event Timeline, Key Figures, Statistical Summary, Location Mapping, Cause and Effect, Source Attribution.
  • Attempts: 380. Kept by the run: 78. Rejected during the run:
    • span not in the document: 143
    • malformed entry in gold: 62
    • malformed entry in fields: 51
    • entry value not in the seed (fields.type): 22
    • rule broken: 10
    • broken JSON: 10
    • entry value not in the seed (gold.source): 3
    • missing a field: 1
  • Removed after the run, by a check added after it finished or by hand review: 3
    • span not in the document: 3
  • Near-duplicates: mean highest word-3-gram overlap with a seed row 0.007, with another new row 0.015; no row at 0.5 or above.
  • Topic spread (topic labels from the seed, one model call per 25 rows): 2.83 bits in the seed, 2.92 bits in the new rows.
  • Time 5.6 min; endpoint cost $0.0876.

Columns

id, family, origin, held_out, state, reference_date, fields (JSON string), gold (JSON string), n_fields, plus expand_mode and expand_topic. family, origin and held_out copy the seed's values so the rows load alongside it; they do NOT mean a row came from SQuAD 2.0, DROP or Wikipedia: every row here is synthetic.

Limits

  • The checks prove that every span is in its document and every value has the right type. They do not prove that the right span was chosen or that a computed or normalised value is right. A 15-row read per config found one wrong computed answer in like-yours (a question about a war the document does not mention, answered with a number instead of null; that row was removed) and fields that repeat the same question. Expect similar errors in rows nobody read.
  • Documents are invented and some contain false history or garbled facts (for example, a misdated battle); the gold answers follow the document, not the world.
  • reference_date copies seed values and does not always fit the document.
  • An outside-domain config was generated and left out: in a 15-row read, 2 rows filled a review date the document never gives.
  • Every row was written by a language model and has not been checked by a person beyond a 15-row read per config. The checks catch format faults, not wrong facts.
  • Synthetic data repeats the habits and blind spots of the model that wrote it. Read a sample before you train on it.

Make your own with DataInventor. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0.