arXiv preprint ·
When Edit Localization Amplifies Relative Selection Bias: Gradient Geometry, Target Mismatch, and Importance Weighting
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Human corrections identify editable spans, but the examples receiving corrections may come from a selective feedback channel. We analyze this interaction at a fixed model checkpoint by decomposing a localized gradient into edited and retained untouched components. Squared relative selection bias is a ratio of quadratics whose derivative has the sign of an explicit quadratic polynomial. Localization can increase, decrease, or nonmonotonically change this diagnostic; its direction depends on component biases and geometry. Oracle importance weighting recovers the population mean for each fixed localization objective, but these objectives have different targets. Against one common full-gradient target, we derive the finite-sample mean-squared error, an analytic optimal retention coefficient, and a fixed-clipping extension. Exact finite-population calculations and 10,000 Monte Carlo repetitions per sample size verify the identities and counterexamples. Public human-post-edit experiments use two translation directions and pretrained models, with declared synthetic selection. An English-German extension differentiates 73.89 million native parameters. In all three declared settings, hard localization has higher relative bias but lower absolute bias than full retention. Untouched-component biases are nonzero and selected component means have negative inner products, so the general criterion applies where the simple unbiased/aligned explanation fails. Output-bias diagnostics show the same endpoint ordering of relative bias across both directions, with one interior maximum. Mechanisms reuse each language's records and include a mixture; they are not independent replications. The evidence separates relative amplification from absolute gradient error and establishes estimation properties, without inferring translation-quality gains or identifying actual complaint propensities.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
The University of Melbourne WMT 2026 CreoleMT Submission: A Domain-Balanced Approach to Low-Resource Pacific Creole Machine Translation
Learning to Refer from Estimated Listener Gaze
An Efficient and Modular Framework for Targeted Harm Mitigation in LLMS
Corpus Characterization and Inverse Constitutional Fine-Tuning for Style-Aware Radiology Reports
FaithfulBench: Does AI Counsel Uphold or Undermine the User's Professed Faith?
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.