Tuning the Right Foundation Models is What you Need for Partial Label Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial label learning (PLL) seeks to train generalizable classifiers from datasets with inexact supervision, a common challenge in real-world applications. Existing studies have developed numerous approaches to progressively refine and recover ground-truth labels by training convolutional neural networks. However, limited attention has been given to foundation models that offer transferrable representations. In this work, we empirically conduct comprehensive evaluations of 11 foundation models across 13 PLL approaches on 8 benchmark datasets under 3 PLL scenarios. We further propose PartialCLIP, an efficient fine-tuning framework for foundation models in PLL. Our findings reveal that current PLL approaches tend to 1) achieve significant performance gains when using foundation models, 2) exhibit remarkably similar performance to each other, 3) maintain stable performance across varying ambiguity levels, while 4) are susceptible to foundation model selection and adaptation strategies. Additionally, we demonstrate the efficacy of text-embedding classifier initialization and effective candidate label filtering using zero-shot CLIP. Our experimental results and analysis underscore the limitations of current PLL approaches and provide valuable insights for developing more generalizable PLL models. The source code can be found at https://github.com/SEU-hk/PartialCLIP.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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".