We investigate the data distribution valuation problem, which aims to quantify the values of data distributions from their samples. This is a recently proposed problem that is related to but different from classical data valuation and can be applied to various applications. For this problem, we develop a novel framework called Generalized Bayes Valuation that utilizes generalized Bayesian inference with a loss constructed from transferability measures. This framework allows us to solve, in a unified way, seemingly unrelated practical problems, such as annotator evaluation and data augmentation. Using the Bayesian principles, we further improve and enhance the applicability of our framework by extending it to the continuous data stream setting. Our experiment results confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of our framework in different real-world scenarios.
Figures & tables
Component
Annotator evaluation
Data augmentation
S
{s1,…,sM} (set of annotators)
{si} , where si=(ψi,αi) (set of augmentors)
Ds
Ds (given noisy sample set from s )
{(s(x),y)∣(x,y)∈Dtr} (transformed training set using s )
D∗
D∗ (given validation set)
Dtr (given training set)
ϕ(s,Ds,D∗)
ms (small model trained on Ds )
mu (pre-trained universal model)
φ(s,Ds,D∗)
D∗ (validation set)
Ds (transformed training set using s )
L(s,Ds,D∗)
−T(ms,D∗)/τ
−T(mu,Ds)/τ
Table 1: Summary of GBV components for two problems in Section 4.2 with a general transferability measure T .
Method
Dataset
CIFAR-10
CUB-200-2011
Uniform
74.37 ± 0.23
52.45 ± 0.85
DAVINZ ( 2022 )
74.82 ± 0.62
52.06 ± 0.38
LAVA ( 2023 )
74.74 ± 0.91
-
MMD ( 2024 )
75.95 ± 0.91
52.62 ± 0.80
GBV (quick τ )
77.94 ± 0.08*
57.58 ± 0.96*
Table 2: Test accuracy (%) of different methods for annotator evaluation. Bold numbers and asterisks (*) indicate the best and second best accuracies on each dataset respectively. Our GBV method outperforms the baselines on both datasets.
Method
Dataset
CUB-200-2011
Stanford-Dogs
AutoAugment ( 2019 )
67.30 ± 0.39
65.64 ± 0.58
RandAugment ( 2020 )
67.73 ± 0.23
67.12 ± 0.31
TrivialAugment ( 2021 )
69.43 ± 0.49
67.64 ± 0.23
EntAugment ( 2024 )
72.38 ± 0.40
72.17 ± 0.27
SRA ( 2025 )
66.53 ± 0.42
66.26 ± 0.42
Table 3: Test accuracy (%) of different methods for data augmentation. Bold numbers and asterisks (*) indicate the best and second best accuracies on each dataset respectively. Our GBV method outperforms the baselines on both datasets.
Figure 1: Test accuracy of different methods for continual annotator evaluation. Our CGBV method consistently outperforms the baselines on this problem.
Method
Time (s)
Method
Time (s)
DAVINZ
10.68 ± 0.4
MMD
1.05 ± 0.58
LAVA
370.21 ± 5.37
GBV
0.85 ± 0.17
Table 4: Running time of different methods.
Figure 2: Effects of different transferability measures (left) and τ (right) on test accuracy. The red column on the right is for the quick τ value.
Figure 3: Test accuracy of GBV with respect to sample size.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
augmentor
range
augmentor
range
equalise
-
rotate
−90∘ - 90∘
solarise
0 - 256
color
0.0 - 5.0
posterise
2 - 8
contrast
0.0 - 0.9
brightness
0 - 5
sharpness
0.0 - 5.
shear_x
0.0 - 0.3
shear_y
0.0 - 0.3
translate_x
0 - 32
translate_y
0 - 32
Appendix
Table 5: Data augmentation space used in our experiment.
Method
CIFAR10
CUB-200-2011
MMD
0.99
0.93
GBV
0.99
0.98
Appendix
Table 6: Pearson correlation coefficients between valuation methods’ solutions and test accuracy with a labeled reference set. The best results for each dataset are highlighted in bold.
Method
Unlabeled
No reference set
MMD
0.76
0.85
GBV
0.83
0.87
Appendix
Table 7: Pearson correlation coefficients between valuation methods’ solutions and test accuracy on CIFAR-10 with unlabeled and entirely unavailable reference sets. The best results in each setting are highlighted in bold.
Universal model
Accuracy (%)
ResNet-50 (ImageNet)
74.45±0.16
ViT-S/16 (DINOv3)
73.99±0.60
ViT-Base (CLIP)
74.80±0.30
Appendix
Table 8: Final test accuracy (%) for data augmentation on CUB-200-2011 when using different universal models mu for GBV.
Data valuation quantifies the intrinsic quality of individual samples to enable principled data curation, quality control, and robust learning. For time series in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and industrial monitoring, effective valuation methods are essential yet fundamentally lacking. Existing approaches are either model-dependent, limiting their generalizability, or designed for i.i.d. data and thus fail to capture temporal dependencies, multi-scale patterns, and non-stationary dynamics inherent to sequential data. We introduce TimeLAVA, a learning-agnostic framework that values temporal segments by their marginal contribution to minimizing distributional discrepancy between evaluated and reference data. At its core is a novel Selective Wavelet-based Wasserstein discrepancy combining multi-scale wavelet transforms for temporal localization with unbalanced optimal transport for robustness to distributional shifts. Segment values are efficiently computed via sensitivity analysis without requiring model training and aggregated into point-wise scores. We provide theoretical guarantees linking valuation to model-agnostic generalization and prove bounded sensitivity to outlier contamination. Extensive experiments across anomaly detection, data pruning, and label noise detection demonstrate that TimeLAVA produces significantly more informative value scores than existing methods on diverse real-world datasets.
Wenqin Liu, Weizhi Quan, Aoqi Zuo +5
School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne · School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney · Responsible AI Research Centre, Australian Institute for Machine Learning +3
Data valuation is a cornerstone of data-centric learning, where prior efforts primarily focus on designing algorithms to classify training samples as either beneficial or detrimental for the learning task. However, leveraging these valuation estimates for subsequent data intervention remains underexplored; conventional approaches typically discard or downweight harmful samples, thereby underutilizing available data resources. In this paper, we present Dynamic Influence-based Valuation and Editing (DIVE), a novel and efficient framework that dynamically estimates sample values at the batch level and transforms detrimental data into beneficial contributions. Rather than altering the raw data, DIVE operates at the optimization level by strategically reversing the gradient directions of harmful samples during training, ensuring seamless integration with standard learning procedures with minimal overhead. Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that DIVE consistently improves classification performance, maximizes data efficiency, stabilizes optimization, and effectively generalizes to large language model fine-tuning.
Adrian Nyakairu, Hongfu Liu
Department of Computer Science, Brandeis University
Data valuation methods quantify how individual training examples contribute to a model's behavior, and are increasingly used for dataset curation, auditing, and emerging data markets. As these techniques become operational, they raise serious privacy concerns: valuation scores can reveal whether a person's data was included in training, whether it was unusually influential, or what sensitive patterns exist in proprietary datasets. This motivates the study of privacy-preserving data valuation. However, privacy is fundamentally in tension with valuation utility under differential privacy (DP). DP requires outputs to be insensitive to any single record, while valuation methods are explicitly designed to measure per-record influence. As a result, naive privatization often destroys the fine-grained distinctions needed to rank or attribute value, particularly in heterogeneous datasets where rare examples exert outsized effects. In this work, we analyze the feasibility of DP-compatible data valuation. We identify the core algorithmic primitives across common valuation frameworks that induce prohibitive sensitivity, explaining why straightforward DP mechanisms fail. We further derive design principles for more privacy-amenable valuation procedures and empirically characterize how privacy constraints degrade ranking fidelity across representative methods and datasets. Our results clarify the limits of current approaches and provide a foundation for developing valuation methods that remain useful under rigorous privacy guarantees.
Yiwei Fu, Tianhao Wang, Varun Chandrasekaran
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · ∗University of Virginia