MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MixNN: Combating Noisy Labels in Deep Learning by Mixing with Nearest Neighbors

2021· article· en· W4206630568 on OpenAlexaff
Yangdi Lu, Wenbo He

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningNoise (video)Deep learningTransfer of learningGround truthRepresentation (politics)Artificial neural networkImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noisy labels are ubiquitous in real-world datasets, especially in the ones from web sources. Training deep neural networks on noisy datasets is a challenging task, as the networks have been shown to overfit the noisy labels in training, resulting in performance degradation. When trained on noisy datasets, deep neural networks have been observed to fit t he clean samples during an "early learning" phase, before eventually memorizing the mislabeled samples. We further explore the representation distributions in the early learning stage and find that the representations of similar samples from the same classes congregate regardless of their noisy labels. Inspired by these findings, we propose MixNN, a novel framework to mitigate the influence of noisy labels. In contrast with existing methods, which identify and eliminate the mislabeled samples, we modify the mislabeled samples by mixing them with their nearest neighbors through a weighted sum approach. The weights are calculated with a mixture model learning from the sample loss distribution. To enhance the performance in the presence of extreme label noise, we propose a strategy to estimate the soft targets by gradually correcting the noisy labels. We demonstrate that the estimated targets yield a more accurate approximation to ground truth labels and a better quality of the learned representations with more separated and clearly bounded clusters. Extensive experiments in two benchmarks and two challenging real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach outperforms the existing state-of-the-art methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207