Instance-Dependent Noisy Label Learning via Graphical Modelling

2 Sep 2022  ยท  Arpit Garg, Cuong Nguyen, Rafael Felix, Thanh-Toan Do, Gustavo Carneiro ยท

Noisy labels are unavoidable yet troublesome in the ecosystem of deep learning because models can easily overfit them. There are many types of label noise, such as symmetric, asymmetric and instance-dependent noise (IDN), with IDN being the only type that depends on image information. Such dependence on image information makes IDN a critical type of label noise to study, given that labelling mistakes are caused in large part by insufficient or ambiguous information about the visual classes present in images. Aiming to provide an effective technique to address IDN, we present a new graphical modelling approach called InstanceGM, that combines discriminative and generative models. The main contributions of InstanceGM are: i) the use of the continuous Bernoulli distribution to train the generative model, offering significant training advantages, and ii) the exploration of a state-of-the-art noisy-label discriminative classifier to generate clean labels from instance-dependent noisy-label samples. InstanceGM is competitive with current noisy-label learning approaches, particularly in IDN benchmarks using synthetic and real-world datasets, where our method shows better accuracy than the competitors in most experiments.

PDF Abstract
Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Learning with noisy labels ANIMAL InstanceGM with ResNet Accuracy 82.3 # 13
Network ResNet # 1
ImageNet Pretrained NO # 1
Learning with noisy labels ANIMAL InstanceGM Accuracy 84.6 # 10
Network Vgg19-BN # 1
ImageNet Pretrained NO # 1
Learning with noisy labels ANIMAL InstanceGM with ConvNeXt Accuracy 84.7 # 9
Network ConvNeXt # 1
ImageNet Pretrained NO # 1
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10 InstanceGM Test Accuracy 95.9 # 1
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-100 InstanceGM Test Accuracy 77.19 # 1
Image Classification Clothing1M InstanceGM Accuracy 74.40% # 17
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 20% label noise InstanceGM-SS Test Accuracy 60.89 # 2
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 20% label noise InstanceGM-SS Accuracy 60.89 # 3
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 20% label noise InstanceGM Accuracy 58.38 # 4
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 20% label noise InstanceGM Test Accuracy 58.38 # 3
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 40% label noise InstanceGM Accuracy 52.24 # 4
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 40% label noise InstanceGM-SS Test Accuracy 56.37 # 2
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 40% label noise InstanceGM-SS Accuracy 56.37 # 2
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 40% label noise InstanceGM Test Accuracy 52.24 # 3
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 60% label noise InstanceGM-SS Accuracy 53.21 # 1
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 60% label noise InstanceGM Accuracy 47.96 # 3
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 60% label noise InstanceGM-SS Test Accuracy 53.21 # 1
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 60% label noise InstanceGM Test Accuracy 47.96 # 2
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 80% label noise InstanceGM Test Accuracy 39.62 # 3
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 80% label noise InstanceGM Accuracy 39.62 # 4
Image Classification Red MiniImageNet 80% label noise InstanceGM-SS Accuracy 44.03 # 2
Learning with noisy labels Red MiniImageNet 80% label noise InstanceGM-SS Test Accuracy 44.03 # 2

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here