Denoising after Entropy-Based Debiasing a Robust Training Method for Dataset Bias with Noisy Labels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improperly constructed datasets can result in inaccurate inferences. For instance, models trained on biased datasets perform poorly in terms of generalization (i.e., dataset bias). Recent debiasing techniques have successfully achieved generalization performance by underestimating easy-to-learn samples (i.e., bias-aligned samples) and highlighting difficult-to-learn samples (i.e., bias-conflicting samples). However, these techniques may fail owing to noisy labels, because the trained model recognizes noisy labels as difficult-to-learn and thus highlights them. In this study, we find that earlier approaches that used the provided labels to quantify difficulty could be affected by the small proportion of noisy labels. Furthermore, we find that running denoising algorithms before debiasing is ineffective because denoising algorithms reduce the impact of difficult-to-learn samples, including valuable bias-conflicting samples. Therefore, we propose an approach called denoising after entropy-based debiasing, i.e., DENEB, which has three main stages. (1) The prejudice model is trained by emphasizing (bias-aligned, clean) samples, which are selected using a Gaussian Mixture Model. (2) Using the per-sample entropy from the output of the prejudice model, the sampling probability of each sample that is proportional to the entropy is computed. (3) The final model is trained using existing denoising algorithms with the mini-batches constructed by following the computed sampling probability. Compared to existing debiasing and denoising algorithms, our method achieves better debiasing performance on multiple benchmarks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".