Learning under label noise through few-shot human-in-the-loop refinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable technologies enable continuous monitoring of various health metrics, such as physical activity, heart rate, sleep, and stress levels. A key challenge with wearable data is obtaining quality labels. Unlike modalities like video where the videos themselves can be effectively used to label objects or events, wearable data do not contain obvious cues about the physical manifestation of the users and usually require rich metadata. As a result, label noise can become an increasingly thorny issue when labeling wearable data. In this paper, we propose a novel solution to address noisy label learning, entitled Few-Shot Human-in-the-Loop Refinement (FHLR). Our method initially learns a seed model using weak labels. Next, it fine-tunes the seed model using a handful of expert corrections. Finally, it achieves better generalizability and robustness by merging the seed and fine-tuned models via weighted parameter averaging. We evaluate our approach on four challenging tasks and datasets, and compare it against eight competitive baselines designed to deal with noisy labels. We show that FHLR achieves significantly better performance when learning from noisy labels and achieves state-of-the-art by a large margin, with up to [Formula: see text] accuracy improvement under symmetric and asymmetric noise. Notably, we find that FHLR is particularly robust to increased label noise, unlike prior works that suffer from severe performance degradation. Our work not only achieves better generalization in high-stakes health sensing benchmarks but also sheds light on how noise affects commonly-used models.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".