Impact of biased mislabeling on learning with deep networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of machine learning is to obtain a good model to correctly predict unseen data. In order to train such models, one needs a sufficient number of clean examples of the ground truth. However, some applications' datasets are not guaranteed to consist entirely of pure examples and might contain mislabeled data. Handling mislabeled data is a domain of outlier statistics and have been studied to some extent in the context of machine learning. Here we ask how does mislabeled data in a training set effect classification performance in deep neural networks. More specifically, motivated by an industrial application, we consider the case where the probability of the class mislabeling in the training set varies considerably between each class. We hence contrast in this paper the case of systematic mislabeling of one class to the more commonly studied situation of a uniform mislabeling between all classes. We demonstrate that the non-uniform mislabeling is more challenging than the more commonly studied uniform case. We also explicitly explore the dependence of our findings to the size of the training data which is not only a common limiting factor in industrial applications but which also has a large effect on the results. We demonstrate that deep networks have an inherent robustness when large datasets are available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".