Learning from Ambiguous Data with Hard Labels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world data often contains intrinsic ambiguity that the common single-hard-label annotation paradigm ignores. Standard training using ambiguous data with these hard labels may produce overly confident models and thus leading to poor generalization. In this paper, we propose a novel framework called Quantized Label Learning (QLL) to alleviate this issue. First, we formulate QLL as learning from (very) ambiguous data with hard labels: ideally, each ambiguous instance should be associated with a ground-truth soft-label distribution describing its corresponding probabilistic weight in each class, however, this is usually not accessible; in practice, we can only observe a quantized label, i.e., a hard label sampled (quantized) from the corresponding ground-truth soft-label distribution, of each instance, which can be seen as a biased approximation of the ground-truth soft-label. Second, we propose a Class-wise Positive-Unlabeled (CPU) risk estimator that allows us to train accurate classifiers from only ambiguous data with quantized labels. Third, to simulate ambiguous datasets with quantized labels in the real world, we design a mixing-based ambiguous data generation procedure for empirical evaluation. Experiments demonstrate that our CPU method can significantly improve model generalization performance and outperform the baselines.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".