The Data Differentiator Framework (DDF): Quantifying Marginal Data Value with Information-Theoretic and Game-Theoretic Measures in an Agentic Evaluation Pipeline (SDSAE)

Sukesh Kumar; Dilip Singh

cs.LGOct 20, 2026

The Data Differentiator Framework (DDF): Quantifying Marginal Data Value with Information-Theoretic and Game-Theoretic Measures in an Agentic Evaluation Pipeline (SDSAE)

Authors: Sukesh Kumar, Dilip Singh

Organizations: Equifax Inc.

Abstract

In data-rich enterprises the hard question is not whether a candidate dataset is good in isolation, but whether it adds information beyond what the organization already holds, and whether that increment is worth its price. We present the Data Differentiator Framework (DDF), a composite scoring method for candidate data assets that combines (i) a mutual-information-based redundancy penalty against the existing portfolio, (ii) a cost-normalized, significance-gated marginal utility score derived from an ablation study, and (iii) explicit governance inputs (trust, identity resolution quality, strategic weights) set by the business. The framework is executed by a staged pipeline, the Strategic Data Sourcing Agent Ecosystem (SDSAE), that short-circuits expensive model-retraining steps for assets failing governance or redundancy gates. Conceptually, the DDF extends the relevance-minus-redundancy principle of mRMR feature selection from the feature level to the asset level, and adds cost normalization, a statistical significance gate, and governance terms that per-sample valuation methods such as Data Shapley do not model. We validate the framework on the public credit-card fraud benchmark (284,807 transactions) with five constructed candidate assets spanning the redundancy spectrum. Only the genuinely differentiated asset passes the significance gate ( $Δ$ AUC = +0.0029, DeLong $p = 1.4\times 10^{-9}$ , Holm-corrected $p = 7.2\times 10^{-9}$ ) and receives an acquire recommendation (DDS = +0.663); the fully redundant asset scores lowest (DDS = -0.135). The recommendation is stable across 19 of 22 admissible strategic-weight configurations and across all decision thresholds in [0.15, 0.66]. We state clearly which quantities in the case study are computed from data and which are simulated governance inputs, and we discuss the design limits of a single-dataset evaluation.

Data Valuation

Data valuation estimates how examples, datasets, or contributors affect model performance to guide selection, auditing, and fair compensation.

See all 43 papers

May 28, 2026

How Much Is a Dataset Worth? Scaling Laws, the Vendi Score, and Matrix Spectral Functions

Neural scaling laws appraise data through dataset size, while the Vendi Score uses quantum entropy to measure dataset value. We show both that common neural-scaling-law objectives and the Vendi Score are submodular. We further show that the Vendi Score is a special case of a broader class of submodular objectives that we call matrix spectral functions. This also includes determinantal (DPP) objectives, as well as many others. We also introduce weakly matrix monotone functions and show how they lead to weakly submodular matrix spectral functions, yielding a broad family of practical objectives for data appraisal. We develop secular-equation-based updates that avoid repeated eigendecompositions during greedy optimization, reducing marginal-gain evaluation for

m

-dimensional embeddings by an

O(m)

factor relative to oracle queries. This yields an average empirical speedup of about 35,000x, making direct optimization of the Vendi Score feasible on ImageNet-1K-scale datasets. Thus enabled, we compare how well several objectives predict the value of training subsets for held-out test performance under fixed-size, class-balanced, and fixed training-budget regimes, including the Vendi Score, DPPs, facility location, and three new matrix spectral variants. Across multiple datasets, facility location performs the best. Direct optimization also reveals that, while the Vendi Score is predictive over moderate score ranges, pushing the objective to higher values can make it a poor downstream performance proxy. We also find that uniformly at random fixed-size subsets, both unconstrained and class-balanced, are remarkably concentrated in both appraisal scores and held-out performance. Finally, we show that size, class balance, and training budget do not alone determine data value: even when controlling for these factors, performance ranges smoothly from good to bad.

Jeff A. Bilmes, Gantavya Bhatt, Arnav M. Das

Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering 2Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington, Seattle Seattle, WA 98195

Submodular Optimization Neural Scaling Laws Data Valuation

Ask PDF

Jul 21, 2026

SFGA: A Statistics-First Gating Architecture with Adjudicative Escalation for Trustworthy SFT Data Procurement

Procuring supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data forces a buyer to decide, before any downstream training, whether a candidate corpus is worth acquiring. We present \sys{}, a statistics-first gating architecture that treats procurement as a cost-aware routing problem over three intrinsic quality axes -- diversity, utility, and redundancy. Cheap blind measurements are summarised into per-axis estimates with confidence intervals; a gate accepts a decision only when intervals are tight, sample sizes are adequate, and the axes agree, otherwise it escalates the case to an adjudicative debate between a buy-advocate and a reject-advocate judge, resolved by a presiding verdict. On a controlled benchmark of 12 datasets (

2{\times}3{\times}2

grid over the three axes) with 5 seeds, the gate reaches 0.90 accuracy and 0.83

F_1

at $0.017 per unit, sitting between an always-verify baseline (0.75) and an oracle upper bound (0.98) while spending less than always-escalate ($0.020). We further report honest negative diagnostics of the debate path: a con-side win rate of 0.80 (

p\approx3{\times}10^{-6}

) and a 52% position-flip rate under advocate swapping expose negativity and positional biases that a naive LLM-judge would hide. We frame the injected-knob evaluation explicitly as a controlled synthetic benchmark for measurement fidelity and routing calibration, and delimit external validity as future work.

Arther Tian, Alex Ding, Simon Wu +1

DGrid AI

Supervised Fine-Tuning LLM-as-a-Judge Selective Prediction

Ask PDF

Feb 27, 2026

Challenges in Enabling Private Data Valuation

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

Data Valuation Privacy-Utility Tradeoff Differential Privacy

Ask PDF

Abstract

Data Valuation

Explore similar work

How Much Is a Dataset Worth? Scaling Laws, the Vendi Score, and Matrix Spectral Functions

SFGA: A Statistics-First Gating Architecture with Adjudicative Escalation for Trustworthy SFT Data Procurement

Challenges in Enabling Private Data Valuation