Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labels

About

Learning exists in the context of data, yet notions of confidence typically focus on model predictions, not label quality. Confident learning (CL) is an alternative approach which focuses instead on label quality by characterizing and identifying label errors in datasets, based on the principles of pruning noisy data, counting with probabilistic thresholds to estimate noise, and ranking examples to train with confidence. Whereas numerous studies have developed these principles independently, here, we combine them, building on the assumption of a class-conditional noise process to directly estimate the joint distribution between noisy (given) labels and uncorrupted (unknown) labels. This results in a generalized CL which is provably consistent and experimentally performant. We present sufficient conditions where CL exactly finds label errors, and show CL performance exceeding seven recent competitive approaches for learning with noisy labels on the CIFAR dataset. Uniquely, the CL framework is not coupled to a specific data modality or model (e.g., we use CL to find several label errors in the presumed error-free MNIST dataset and improve sentiment classification on text data in Amazon Reviews). We also employ CL on ImageNet to quantify ontological class overlap (e.g., estimating 645 "missile" images are mislabeled as their parent class "projectile"), and moderately increase model accuracy (e.g., for ResNet) by cleaning data prior to training. These results are replicable using the open-source cleanlab release.

Curtis G. Northcutt, Lu Jiang, Isaac L. Chuang• 2019

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Image ClassificationCIFAR-100 (test)
Accuracy57.92
3518
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10 (test)
Accuracy88.01
3381
Text ClassificationAG-News
Accuracy93.26
248
Sentiment ClassificationSST2 (test)
Accuracy93.45
214
Text ClassificationTREC (test)
Accuracy95.88
113
Text ClassificationIMDB (test)
Accuracy93.56
77
Text ClassificationAGNews synthetic noise (test)
Accuracy92.3
50
Text ClassificationIMDB synthetic noise (test)
Accuracy89.08
50
Text ClassificationTrec synthetic noise (test)
Accuracy95.64
34
News topic classification20 Newsgroups 40% Symmetric Noise
Accuracy77.04
24
Showing 10 of 24 rows

Other info

Follow for update