Clusterability as an Alternative to Anchor Points When Learning with Noisy Labels

10 Feb 2021  ยท  Zhaowei Zhu, Yiwen Song, Yang Liu ยท

The label noise transition matrix, characterizing the probabilities of a training instance being wrongly annotated, is crucial to designing popular solutions to learning with noisy labels. Existing works heavily rely on finding "anchor points" or their approximates, defined as instances belonging to a particular class almost surely. Nonetheless, finding anchor points remains a non-trivial task, and the estimation accuracy is also often throttled by the number of available anchor points. In this paper, we propose an alternative option to the above task. Our main contribution is the discovery of an efficient estimation procedure based on a clusterability condition. We prove that with clusterable representations of features, using up to third-order consensuses of noisy labels among neighbor representations is sufficient to estimate a unique transition matrix. Compared with methods using anchor points, our approach uses substantially more instances and benefits from a much better sample complexity. We demonstrate the estimation accuracy and advantages of our estimates using both synthetic noisy labels (on CIFAR-10/100) and real human-level noisy labels (on Clothing1M and our self-collected human-annotated CIFAR-10). Our code and human-level noisy CIFAR-10 labels are available at https://github.com/UCSC-REAL/HOC.

PDF Abstract
Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-100, 20% IDN HOC Global Accuracy 68.82% # 3
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-100, 40% IDN HOC Global Accuracy 62.29% # 3
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-100, 60% IDN HOC Global Accuracy 52.96% # 2
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-100N CAL Accuracy (mean) 61.73 # 7
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-10, 20% IDN HOC Local Accuracy 90.03% # 3
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-10, 40% IDN HOC Local Accuracy 85.49% # 2
Image Classification with Label Noise CIFAR-10, 60% IDN HOC Local Accuracy 77.4% # 3
Image Classification with Human Noise CIFAR-10, Human Noise HOC Accuracy 90.62% # 1
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10N-Aggregate CAL Accuracy (mean) 91.97 # 11
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10N-Random1 CAL Accuracy (mean) 90.93 # 9
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10N-Random2 CAL Accuracy (mean) 90.75 # 8
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10N-Random3 CAL Accuracy (mean) 90.74 # 7
Learning with noisy labels CIFAR-10N-Worst CAL Accuracy (mean) 85.36 # 9
Image Classification Clothing1M HOC Accuracy 73.39% # 27

Methods