4.7 Article

Trusted-Data-Guided Label Enhancement on Noisy Labels

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3162316

关键词

Noise measurement; Training; Probabilistic logic; Labeling; Training data; Task analysis; Supervised learning; Label distribution learning (LDL); label enhancement (LE); noisy labels; trusted data

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article proposes a novel LE method named TALEN which recovers and refines label distribution guided by trusted data, effectively dealing with the problem of corrupted labels. Experimental results demonstrate the advantages of TALEN over existing noise-robust learning methods on various datasets.
Label distribution covers a certain number of labels, representing the degree to which each label describes the instance. Label enhancement (LE) is a procedure of recovering the label distribution from the logical labels in the training data, the purpose of which is to better depict the label ambiguity through label distribution. However, data annotation inevitably introduces label noise, and it is extremely challenging to implement LE on corrupted labels. To deal with this problem, one way to recover the label distribution from the corrupted labels is to be guided by a small batch of trusted data. In this article, a novel LE method named TALEN is proposed via recovering and progressively refining label distribution guided by trusted data. Specifically, an LE process is applied to the untrusted data to select samples with a clean label. In addition, a combined loss function is designed to train the predictive model for classification. Experiments on datasets with synthetic label noise validate the feasibility of identifying clean labels via the recovered label distribution. Furthermore, experimental results on both synthetic label noise and real-world label noise on image datasets and additional experiments on text datasets show a clear advantage of TALEN over several existing noise-robust learning methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据