Denoising after Entropy-Based Debiasing a Robust Training Method for Dataset Bias with Noisy Labels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it