Chang Sheng Zhou

h-index8
2papers
334citations

2 Papers

4.1LGDec 15, 2025
Investigating Data Pruning for Pretraining Biological Foundation Models at Scale

Yifan Wu, Jiyue Jiang, Xichen Ye et al.

Biological foundation models (BioFMs), pretrained on large-scale biological sequences, have recently shown strong potential in providing meaningful representations for diverse downstream bioinformatics tasks. However, such models often rely on millions to billions of training sequences and billions of parameters, resulting in prohibitive computational costs and significant barriers to reproducibility and accessibility, particularly for academic labs. To address these challenges, we investigate the feasibility of data pruning for BioFM pretraining and propose a post-hoc influence-guided data pruning framework tailored to biological domains. Our approach introduces a subset-based self-influence formulation that enables efficient estimation of sample importance at low computational cost, and builds upon it two simple yet effective selection strategies, namely Top-k Influence (Top I) and Coverage-Centric Influence (CCI). We empirically validate our method on two representative BioFMs, RNA-FM and ESM-C. For RNA, our framework consistently outperforms random selection baselines under an extreme pruning rate of over 99 percent, demonstrating its effectiveness. Furthermore, we show the generalizability of our framework on protein-related tasks using ESM-C. In particular, our coreset even outperforms random subsets that are ten times larger in both RNA and protein settings, revealing substantial redundancy in biological sequence datasets. These findings underscore the potential of influence-guided data pruning to substantially reduce the computational cost of BioFM pretraining, paving the way for more efficient, accessible, and sustainable biological AI research.

15.9CLJun 18, 2024Code
Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones?

Zhe Yang, Yichang Zhang, Tianyu Liu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues (e.g. LLMs can react differently to disturbances like rephrasing or inconsequential order change). In addition to these inconsistencies, we also observe that LLMs, while capable of solving hard problems, can paradoxically fail at easier ones. To evaluate this hard-to-easy inconsistency, we develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of consistency score to quantitatively measure this inconsistency and analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score. Based on comprehensive experiments across a variety of existing models, we find: (1) GPT-4 achieves the highest consistency score of 92.2\% but is still inconsistent to specific questions due to distraction by redundant information, misinterpretation of questions, etc.; (2) models with stronger capabilities typically exhibit higher consistency, but exceptions also exist; (3) hard data enhances consistency for both fine-tuning and in-context learning. Our data and code will be publicly available on GitHub.