Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Computer Science

ISSN 2095-2228

ISSN 2095-2236(Online)

CN 10-1014/TP

邮发代号 80-970

2019 Impact Factor: 1.275

Frontiers of Computer Science  2025, Vol. 19 Issue (1): 191302   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-023-3578-7
  本期目录
KD-Crowd: a knowledge distillation framework for learning from crowds
Shaoyuan LI(), Yuxiang ZHENG, Ye SHI, Shengjun HUANG, Songcan CHEN
College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIIT Key Laboratory of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Nanjing 211106, China
 全文: PDF(5087 KB)   HTML
Abstract

Recently, crowdsourcing has established itself as an efficient labeling solution by distributing tasks to crowd workers. As the workers can make mistakes with diverse expertise, one core learning task is to estimate each workers expertise, and aggregate over them to infer the latent true labels. In this paper, we show that as one of the major research directions, the noise transition matrix based worker expertise modeling methods commonly overfit the annotation noise, either due to the oversimplified noise assumption or inaccurate estimation. To solve this problem, we propose a knowledge distillation framework (KD-Crowd) by combining the complementary strength of noise-model-free robust learning techniques and transition matrix based worker expertise modeling. The framework consists of two stages: in Stage 1, a noise-model-free robust student model is trained by treating the prediction of a transition matrix based crowdsourcing teacher model as noisy labels, aiming at correcting the teacher’s mistakes and obtaining better true label predictions; in Stage 2, we switch their roles, retraining a better crowdsourcing model using the crowds’ annotations supervised by the refined true label predictions given by Stage 1. Additionally, we propose one f-mutual information gain (MIGf) based knowledge distillation loss, which finds the maximum information intersection between the student’s and teacher’s prediction. We show in experiments that MIGf achieves obvious improvements compared to the regular KL divergence knowledge distillation loss, which tends to force the student to memorize all information of the teacher’s prediction, including its errors. We conduct extensive experiments showing that, as a universal framework, KD-Crowd substantially improves previous crowdsourcing methods on true label prediction and worker expertise estimation.

Key wordscrowdsourcing    label noise    worker expertise    knowledge distillation    robust learning
收稿日期: 2023-07-19      出版日期: 2024-03-12
Corresponding Author(s): Shaoyuan LI   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2025, 19(1): 191302.
Shaoyuan LI, Yuxiang ZHENG, Ye SHI, Shengjun HUANG, Songcan CHEN. KD-Crowd: a knowledge distillation framework for learning from crowds. Front. Comput. Sci., 2025, 19(1): 191302.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/CN/10.1007/s11704-023-3578-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/CN/Y2025/V19/I1/191302
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
  
Noise scenarios Inst 20% Sym 20% Sym 40%
Methods Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes
DL-MV Best 72.45 ± 0.61 54.08 ± 5.83 64.79 ± 4.24 74.14 ± 0.12 10.00 ± 0.00 73.72 ± 0.44 69.65 ± 0.45 10.00 ± 0.00 69.46 ± 0.13
Last 71.65 ± 0.63 52.52 ± 6.13 63.69 ± 4.24 73.40 ± 0.47 10.00 ± 0.00 72.60 ± 1.28 69.19 ± 0.35 10.00 ± 0.00 67.69 ± 0.32
WDN Best 68.73 ± 1.48 10.60 ± 0.68 68.47 ± 1.86 74.16 ± 0.52 10.30 ± 0.17 73.10 ± 0.58 69.39 ± 0.65 10.01 ± 0.07 67.39 ± 2.29
Last 68.25 ± 1.48 10.47 ± 0.58 68.15 ± 1.77 73.77 ± 0.62 10.24 ± 0.15 72.82 ± 0.65 69.03 ± 0.76 10.04 ± 0.04 66.79 ± 2.24
CrowdLayer Best 68.31 ± 1.65 69.43 ± 1.30 63.79 ± 0.84 73.51 ± 0.15 73.81 ± 0.48 73.91 ± 0.21 70.86 ± 0.65 70.54 ± 0.26 69.76 ± 0.43
Last 61.75 ± 0.95 62.06 ± 0.58 62.95 ± 1.10 71.22 ± 0.66 71.02 ± 0.41 70.01 ± 0.21 61.54 ± 0.34 61.25 ± 0.51 60.59 ± 0.30
AggNet Best 72.87 ± 0.47 51.98 ± 2.01 72.54 ± 0.30 74.27 ± 0.18 10.00 ± 0.00 73.91 ± 0.21 69.98 ± 0.11 10.00 ± 0.00 69.63 ± 0.23
Last 72.12 ± 0.45 50.98 ± 2.06 71.82 ± 0.59 73.94 ± 0.38 10.00 ± 0.00 72.85 ± 0.34 69.05 ± 0.72 10.00 ± 0.00 68.80 ± 0.69
CoNAL Best 72.13 ± 0.40 71.88 ± 0.64 70.47 ± 0.52 74.40 ± 0.29 71.99 ± 3.59 73.95 ± 0.25 70.42 ± 0.23 66.69 ± 1.74 70.15 ± 0.05
Last 65.84 ± 0.38 64.80 ± 0.19 63.76 ± 2.01 71.23 ± 0.32 67.47 ± 5.98 70.76 ± 0.84 60.79 ± 1.12 59.79 ± 3.59 59.98 ± 0.70
Max-MIG Best 71.16 ± 0.55 70.61 ± 0.23 70.99 ± 0.52 73.91 ± 0.13 74.23 ± 0.35 72.72 ± 0.11 70.14 ± 0.45 70.36 ± 0.42 68.94 ± 0.44
Last 63.65 ± 1.17 62.26 ± 0.28 63.47 ± 0.14 73.17 ± 0.74 73.64 ± 0.23 71.79 ± 0.45 68.37 ± 0.19 68.01 ± 0.54 64.17 ± 0.56
KD-Crowd Stage 1 77.25 ± 0.42 77.03 ± 0.92 77.05 ± 0.78 85.12 ± 0.37 85.48 ± 0.32 84.77 ± 0.25 84.57 ± 0.29 84.62 ± 0.43 84.52 ± 0.50
Stage 2 88.99 ± 0.86 88.23 ± 0.97 88.28 ± 0.58 89.10 ± 0.96 89.33 ± 0.84 89.28 ± 0.10 87.92 ± 0.52 87.91 ± 0.52 88.44 ± 0.30
Ensemble 89.29 ± 0.69 88.73 ± 0.76 88.75 ± 0.30 89.96 ± 0.81 90.28 ± 0.15 90.10 ± 0.13 88.86 ± 0.56 88.89 ± 0.21 89.40 ± 0.24
Noise scenarios Sym 60% Sym 80% Asym
Methods Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes Independent Mistakes Effortless Workers Correlated Mistakes
DL-MV Best 70.18 ± 0.40 23.48 ± 1.06 69.32 ± 1.05 32.13 ± 1.36 10.02 ± 0.04 36.62 ± 0.98 53.62 ± 0.15 42.37 ± 0.56 53.00 ± 0.78
Last 41.16 ± 1.30 19.47 ± 0.96 37.49 ± 1.53 18.37 ± 0.72 10.00 ± 0.00 17.33 ± 0.30 52.27 ± 1.01 35.75 ± 0.79 50.32 ± 0.28
WDN Best 71.26 ± 0.40 16.47 ± 1.71 55.72 ± 1.59 46.93 ± 1.58 10.23 ± 0.23 17.00 ± 0.95 68.78 ± 2.27 40.72 ± 3.99 66.09 ± 0.76
Last 45.93 ± 0.66 14.79 ± 4.19 36.05 ± 1.20 26.29 ± 9.14 10.16 ± 0.19 15.50 ± 1.35 52.56 ± 4.33 26.01 ± 4.12 55.27 ± 6.03
CrowdLayer Best 73.56 ± 0.50 71.67 ± 0.27 57.70 ± 2.49 56.50 ± 1.55 41.79 ± 1.74 10.99 ± 0.94 81.48 ± 0.29 71.26 ± 4.29 72.41 ± 0.48
Last 51.81 ± 1.01 50.17 ± 1.02 48.14 ± 0.88 24.28 ± 1.28 13.72 ± 1.54 10.53 ± 0.56 80.91 ± 0.93 70.15 ± 5.11 71.54 ± 0.47
AggNet Best 76.92 ± 0.67 76.43 ± 0.38 71.35 ± 0.64 59.79 ± 1.50 40.57 ± 3.19 44.49 ± 1.18 82.10 ± 0.41 78.35 ± 1.29 69.40 ± 0.36
Last 55.49 ± 1.47 54.41 ± 0.16 44.32 ± 0.52 26.96 ± 1.07 25.46 ± 0.87 15.43 ± 0.99 80.43 ± 0.43 76.93 ± 1.19 65.56 ± 2.64
CoNAL Best 73.80 ± 0.06 16.83 ± 9.56 74.06 ± 0.77 55.46 ± 0.98 10.00 ± 0.00 53.12 ± 0.45 79.96 ± 0.28 57.80 ± 4.37 80.29 ± 0.24
Last 47.82 ± 5.55 16.79 ± 9.49 47.02 ± 3.47 22.93 ± 0.92 10.00 ± 0.00 21.69 ± 0.48 79.18 ± 0.64 56.99 ± 3.97 80.04 ± 0.50
Max-MIG Best 74.07 ± 0.23 74.04 ± 0.45 72.47 ± 0.76 55.07 ± 3.21 56.91 ± 0.93 49.73 ± 0.34 80.99 ± 0.24 80.25 ± 0.20 78.16 ± 0.27
Last 61.00 ± 0.44 62.26 ± 0.28 54.50 ± 0.50 27.56 ± 1.39 29.16 ± 0.97 22.15 ± 0.16 80.05 ± 0.70 79.38 ± 0.29 76.21 ± 1.37
KD-Crowd Stage 1 84.60 ± 0.51 86.66 ± 0.81 83.95 ± 0.44 68.94 ± 0.88 71.54 ± 0.57 47.75 ± 1.28 87.11 ± 1.09 88.34 ± 0.87 86.60 ± 0.88
Stage 2 83.46 ± 0.13 83.43 ± 0.32 82.69 ± 0.96 73.22 ± 0.37 74.69 ± 0.21 51.10 ± 1.60 84.41 ± 0.89 84.92 ± 0.32 84.35 ± 0.58
Ensemble 86.08 ± 0.10 87.17 ± 0.16 85.87 ± 0.15 72.23 ± 0.16 74.35 ± 0.33 51.74 ± 0.85 89.95 ± 0.08 89.60 ± 0.30 87.65 ± 0.25
Tab.1  
Datasets LabelMe CIFAR10H
Methods Best Last Best Last
DL-MV 81.23 ± 2.78 76.37 ± 0.67 63.87 ± 0.54 58.43 ± 0.80
WDN 83.78 ± 0.86 82.24 ± 0.37 69.43 ± 0.32 68.67 ± 0.45
CrowdLayer 85.63 ± 0.53 80.78 ± 0.39 67.26 ± 0.43 65.30 ± 1.17
AggNet 87.05 ± 0.24 83.87 ± 0.87 69.58 ± 0.30 67.94 ± 0.77
CoNAL 84.01 ± 0.36 79.97 ± 0.93 66.46 ± 0.52 61.53 ± 0.88
Max-MIG 87.40 ± 1.55 82.32 ± 0.59 67.87 ± 0.21 65.83 ± 0.24
KD-Crowd Stage 1 89.22 ± 1.12 70.19 ± 0.51
Stage 2 89.11 ± 0.21 69.99 ± 0.65
Ensemble 89.03 ± 0.52 71.46 ± 0.28
Tab.2  
Metric Test accuracy Train accuracy
Noise scenarios Sym 60% Sym 80% Asym Sym 60% Sym 80% Asym
Stages Student type Distillation method
Initialization 70.32 ± 0.02 49.48 ± 2.69 79.64 ± 0.41 78.01 ± 0.15 51.47 ± 2.96 90.26 ± 0.14
61.00 ± 0.44 27.56 ± 1.39 80.05 ± 0.70 67.05 ± 0.24 31.49 ± 0.21 90.75 ± 0.07
Stage 1 ELR 72.87 ± 1.04 53.74 ± 0.92 78.23 ± 0.54 79.21 ± 0.30 53.65 ± 1.77 87.76 ± 0.36
ELR+ 84.60 ± 0.51 68.94 ± 0.88 87.11 ± 1.09 86.21 ± 0.34 70.23 ± 0.29 91.26 ± 0.12
Stage 2 ELR → Di KL Divergence 71.14 ± 0.20 50.92 ± 1.21 78.77 ± 0.42 77.28 ± 0.31 50.61 ± 0.71 87.61 ± 0.06
ELR → M KL Divergence 72.74 ± 0.24 51.93 ± 2.30 79.25 ± 0.18 77.90 ± 0.41 52.04 ± 2.20 87.86 ± 0.25
ELR → M MIGf 79.12 ± 0.48 65.67 ± 2.21 82.22 ± 0.43 84.13 ± 0.58 67.40 ± 2.12 89.59 ± 0.26
ELR+ → M MIGf 81.87 ± 0.45 70.09 ± 0.70 82.94 ± 0.60 85.74 ± 0.09 69.98 ± 0.49 90.87 ± 0.03
ELR+ → M MIGf, Disturb 83.46 ± 0.13 73.22 ± 0.37 84.41 ± 0.89 88.56 ± 0.07 72.89 ± 0.09 92.79 ± 0.13
Ensemble ELR+ → M MIGf, Disturb 86.08 ± 0.10 72.23 ± 0.16 89.95 ± 0.08 88.73 ± 0.14 72.06 ± 0.14 93.26 ± 0.03
Tab.3  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Metirc Test accuracy Train accuracy
Datasets LabelMe CIFAR10H LabelMe CIFAR10H
Methods Stage
CrowdLayer ELR+ Stage 1 79.53 ± 3.58 69.77 ± 0.47 86.28 ± 4.72 80.65 ± 1.21
Stage 2 82.21 ± 0.65 69.67 ± 1.63 83.27 ± 0.57 77.65 ± 0.82
Ensemble 80.78 ± 3.00 72.10 ± 0.80
CrowdLayer DivideMix Stage 1 83.42 ± 0.67 68.07 ± 2.23 85.80 ± 2.10 77.83 ± 3.34
Stage 2 82.18 ± 0.95 64.40 ± 6.90 76.43 ± 0.87 72.60 ± 8.14
Ensemble 86.56 ± 0.98 71.73 ± 1.37
Max-MIG ELR+ Stage 1 89.33 ± 0.24 69.43 ± 0.32 86.69 ± 4.72 79.60 ± 1.29
Stage 2 87.77 ± 0.31 68.67 ± 0.45 91.63 ± 1.07 79.67 ± 3.68
Ensemble 89.79 ± 0.10 71.46 ± 0.28
Max-MIG DivideMix Stage 1 84.37 ± 1.99 66.73 ± 0.97 87.90 ± 1.15 73.13 ± 0.46
Stage 2 88.97 ± 0.42 71.27 ± 1.33 91.17 ± 0.63 77.39 ± 0.21
Ensemble 88.24 ± 1.66 70.43 ± 1.27
Tab.4  
  
  
  
  
  
1 R, Snow B, O’Connor D, Jurafsky A Y Ng . Cheap and fast - but is it good?: evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2008, 254−263
2 V C, Raykar S, Yu L H, Zhao G H, Valadez C, Florin L, Bogoni L Moy . Learning from crowds. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2010, 11: 1297–1322
3 S, Albarqouni C, Baur F, Achilles V, Belagiannis S, Demirci N Navab . AggNet: deep learning from crowds for mitosis detection in breast cancer histology images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2016, 35( 5): 1313–1321
4 Rodrigues F, Pereira F. Deep learning from crowds. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, and 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 2017, 197
5 Yang Y, Wei H, Zhu H, Yu D, Xiong H, Yang J. Exploiting crossmodal prediction and relation consistency for semisupervised image captioning. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2022.3156367
6 A P, Dawid A M Skene . Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Applied Statistics, 1979, 28( 1): 20–28
7 P, Cao Y, Xu Y, Kong Y Wang . Max-MIG: an information theoretic approach for joint learning from crowds. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations. 2019
8 N, Natarajan I S, Dhillon P, Ravikumar A Tewari . Learning with noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2013, 1196−1204
9 D, Arpit S, Jastrzebski N, Ballas D, Krueger E, Bengio M S, Kanwal T, Maharaj A, Fischer A, Courville Y, Bengio S Lacoste-Julien . A closer look at memorization in deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2017, 233−242
10 X-J, Gui W, Wang Z-H Tian . Towards understanding deep learning from noisy labels with small-loss criterion. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2021, 2469−2475
11 L, Jiang Z, Zhou T, Leung L-J, Li F-F Li . MentorNet: learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2018, 2304−2313
12 B, Han Q, Yao X, Yu G, Niu M, Xu W, Hu I W, Tsang M Sugiyama . Co-teaching: robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2018, 8536−8546
13 X, Yu B, Han J, Yao G, Niu I, Tsang M Sugiyama . How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption? In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2019, 7164−7173
14 E, Malach S Shalev-Shwartz . Decoupling “when to update” from “how to update”. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017, 961−971
15 J, Li R, Socher S C H Hoi . DivideMix: learning with noisy labels as semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Representations. 2020
16 S, Liu J, Niles-Weed N, Razavian C Fernandez-Granda . Early-learning regularization prevents memorization of noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020, 1707
17 H, Song M, Kim J G Lee . SELFIE: refurbishing unclean samples for robust deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2019, 5907−5915
18 Q, Liu J, Peng A T Ihler . Variational inference for crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2012, 692−700
19 D, Zhou J C, Platt S, Basu Y Mao . Learning from the wisdom of crowds by minimax entropy. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2012, 2195−2203
20 F, Rodrigues F C, Pereira B Ribeiro . Gaussian process classification and active learning with multiple annotators. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning. 2014, 433−441
21 Guan M Y, Gulshan V, Dai A M, Hinton G E. Who said what: modeling individual labelers improves classification. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 2018
22 R, Tanno A, Saeedi S, Sankaranarayanan D C, Alexander N Silberman . Learning from noisy labels by regularized estimation of annotator confusion. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2019, 11236−11245
23 Chu Z, Ma J, Wang H. Learning from crowds by modeling common confusions. In: Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence AAAI 2021, 33rd Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, and 11th Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 2021, 5832−5840
24 S-Y, Li S-J, Huang S Chen . Crowdsourcing aggregation with deep Bayesian learning. Science China Information Sciences, 2021, 64( 3): 130104
25 Y, Shi S-Y, Li S-J Huang . Learning from crowds with sparse and imbalanced annotations. Machine Learning, 2023, 112( 6): 1823–1845
26 S-Y, Li Y, Jiang N V, Chawla Z-H Zhou . Multi-label learning from crowds. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2019, 31( 7): 1369–1382
27 K, Lee S, Yun K, Lee H, Lee B, Li J Shin . Robust inference via generative classifiers for handling noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2019, 3763−3772
28 Y, Yao T, Liu B, Han M, Gong J, Deng G, Niu M Sugiyama . Dual T: reducing estimation error for transition matrix in label-noise learning. In: Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020, 7260−7271
29 Ghosh A, Kumar H, Sastry P S. Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2017, 1919−1925
30 Z, Zhang M R Sabuncu . Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2018, 8792−8802
31 X, Ma H, Huang Y, Wang S R S, Erfani J Bailey . Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2020, 607
32 Li M, Soltanolkotabi M, Oymak S. Gradient descent with early stopping is provably robust to label noise for overparameterized neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 2020, 4313−4324
33 G, Hinton O, Vinyals J Dean . Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. 2015. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1503.02531
34 Z-H, Zhou Y, Jiang S-F Chen . Extracting symbolic rules from trained neural network ensembles. AI Communications, 2003, 16( 1): 3–15
35 Z-H, Zhou Y Jiang . NeC4.5: neural ensemble based C4.5. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2004, 16( 6): 770–773
36 N, Li Y, Yu Z-H Zhou . Diversity regularized ensemble pruning. In: Proceedings of Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. 2012, 330−345
37 Y, Li J, Yang Y, Song L, Cao J, Luo L-J Li . Learning from noisy labels with distillation. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2017, 1928−1936
38 Z, Zhang H, Zhang S Ö, Arik H, Lee T Pfister . Distilling effective supervision from severe label noise. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2020, 9291−9300
39 Yang Y, Zhan D-C, Fan Y, Jiang Y, Zhou Z-H. Deep learning for fixed model reuse. In: Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2017, 2831−2837
40 Q, Xie M T, Luong E, Hovy Q V Le . Self-training with noisy student improves ImageNet classification. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2020, 10684−10695
41 E D, Cubuk B, Zoph J, Shlens Q V Le . Randaugment: practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search space. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 2020, 3008−3017
42 A Krizhevsky . Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. University of Toronto, Dissertation, 2009
43 X, Xia T, Liu B, Han N, Wang M, Gong H, Liu G, Niu D, Tao M Sugiyama . Part-dependent label noise: towards instance-dependent label noise. In: Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020, 7597−7610
44 J C, Peterson R M, Battleday T L, Griffiths O Russakovsky . Human uncertainty makes classification more robust. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2019, 9617−9626
45 K, He X, Zhang S, Ren J Sun . Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2016, 770−778
46 N, Ma X, Zhang H-T, Zheng J Sun . ShuffleNet V2: practical guidelines for efficient CNN architecture design. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Computer Vision. 2018, 122−138
[1] FCS-23578-OF-SL_suppl_1 Download
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed