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

CLIPCleaner: Cleaning Noisy Labels with CLIP

About

Learning with Noisy labels (LNL) poses a significant challenge for the Machine Learning community. Some of the most widely used approaches that select as clean samples for which the model itself (the in-training model) has high confidence, e.g., `small loss', can suffer from the so called `self-confirmation' bias. This bias arises because the in-training model, is at least partially trained on the noisy labels. Furthermore, in the classification case, an additional challenge arises because some of the label noise is between classes that are visually very similar (`hard noise'). This paper addresses these challenges by proposing a method (\textit{CLIPCleaner}) that leverages CLIP, a powerful Vision-Language (VL) model for constructing a zero-shot classifier for efficient, offline, clean sample selection. This has the advantage that the sample selection is decoupled from the in-training model and that the sample selection is aware of the semantic and visual similarities between the classes due to the way that CLIP is trained. We provide theoretical justifications and empirical evidence to demonstrate the advantages of CLIP for LNL compared to conventional pre-trained models. Compared to current methods that combine iterative sample selection with various techniques, \textit{CLIPCleaner} offers a simple, single-step approach that achieves competitive or superior performance on benchmark datasets. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a VL model has been used for sample selection to address the problem of Learning with Noisy Labels (LNL), highlighting their potential in the domain.

Chen Feng, Georgios Tzimiropoulos, Ioannis Patras• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Image ClassificationCIFAR-100 (test)
Accuracy78.2
3518
Image ClassificationClothing1M (test)
Accuracy74.87
546
Image ClassificationILSVRC 2012 (test)
Top-1 Acc77.8
117
Image ClassificationCIFAR10 (test)
Accuracy95.15
76
Image ClassificationANIMAL-10N (test)
Accuracy88.85
75
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10 (test)
Accuracy95.92
68
Image ClassificationWebvision (test)
Acc81.56
57
Image ClassificationRed Mini-ImageNet (test)
Accuracy54.21
51
Image ClassificationCIFAR10 instance-dependent noise (test)--
32
Image ClassificationRed Mini-ImageNet (test)
Accuracy (Noise 0.2)61.44
16
Showing 10 of 10 rows

Other info

Follow for update