MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188412909 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/449

Multi-level Generative Models for Partial Label Learning with Non-random Label Noise

2021· article· en· W3188412909 on OpenAlexafffund
Yan Yan, Yuhong Guo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerator (circuit theory)Noise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Multi-label classificationMachine learningNoise reductionImage (mathematics)Power (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial label (PL) learning tackles the problem where each training instance is associated with a set of candidate labels that include both the true label and some irrelevant noise labels. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-level generative model for partial label learning (MGPLL), which tackles the PL problem by learning both a label level adversarial generator and a feature level adversarial generator under a bi-directional mapping framework between the label vectors and the data samples. MGPLL uses a conditional noise label generation network to model the non-random noise labels and perform label denoising, and uses a multi-class predictor to map the training instances to the denoised label vectors, while a conditional data feature generator is used to form an inverse mapping from the denoised label vectors to data samples. Both the noise label generator and the data feature generator are learned in an adversarial manner to match the observed candidate labels and data features respectively. We conduct extensive experiments on both synthesized and real-world partial label datasets. The proposed approach demonstrates the state-of-the-art performance for partial label learning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207