MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212816054 · doi:10.1145/3488560.3498376

An Ensemble Model for Combating Label Noise

2022· article· en· W4212816054 on OpenAlexaff
Yangdi Lu, Bo Yang, Wenbo He

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNoise (video)Machine learningArtificial neural networkConsistency (knowledge bases)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Matching (statistics)Measure (data warehouse)Function (biology)Data miningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The labels crawled from web services (e.g. querying images from search engines and collecting tags from social media images) are often prone to noise, and the presence of such label noise degrades the classification performance of the resulting deep neural network (DNN) models. In this paper, we propose an ensemble model consisting of two networks to prevent the model from memorizing noisy labels. Within our model, we have one network generate an anchoring label from its prediction on a weakly-augmented image. Meanwhile, we force its peer network, taking the strongly-augmented version of the same image as input, to generate prediction close to the anchoring label for knowledge distillation. By observing the loss distribution, we use a mixture model to dynamically estimate the clean probability of each training sample and generate a confidence clean set. Then we train both networks simultaneously by the clean set to minimize our loss function which contains unsupervised matching loss (i.e., measure the consistency of the two networks) and supervised classification loss (i.e. measure the classification performance). We theoretically analyze the gradient of our loss function to show that it implicitly prevents memorization of the wrong labels. Experiments on two simulated benchmarks and one real-world dataset demonstrate that our approach achieves substantial improvements over the 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data MiningSame topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207