LiLAW: Lightweight Learnable Adaptive Weighting to Learn Sample Difficulty & Improve Noisy Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training deep neural networks with noise and data heterogeneity is a major challenge. We introduce Lightweight Learnable Adaptive Weighting (LiLAW), a method that dynamically adjusts the loss weight of each training sample based on its evolving difficulty, categorized as easy, moderate, and hard, using only three global learnable scalar parameters. LiLAW learns to adaptively prioritize samples by updating these parameters with a single gradient descent step on a validation mini-batch after each training mini-batch, without requiring a clean, unbiased validation set. Experiments across general and medical imaging datasets, several noise types and levels, loss functions, and architectures with and without pretraining, including linear probing and full fine-tuning, show that LiLAW consistently improves accuracy and AUROC, especially in higher-noise settings, without requiring excessive tuning. We also obtain state-of-the-art results incorporating synthetic and augmented data from SynPAIN, GAITGen, ECG5000, and improved fairness on the Adult dataset. LiLAW is lightweight, practical, and computationally efficient, making it an effective, scalable approach to boost generalization and robustness across diverse deep learning training setups, especially in resource-constrained settings.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".