TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/To Smooth or Not? When Label Smoothing Meets Noisy Labels

To Smooth or Not? When Label Smoothing Meets Noisy Labels

Jiaheng Wei, Hangyu Liu, Tongliang Liu, Gang Niu, Masashi Sugiyama, Yang Liu

2021-06-08Image ClassificationLearning with noisy labels
PaperPDFCode(official)

Abstract

Label smoothing (LS) is an arising learning paradigm that uses the positively weighted average of both the hard training labels and uniformly distributed soft labels. It was shown that LS serves as a regularizer for training data with hard labels and therefore improves the generalization of the model. Later it was reported LS even helps with improving robustness when learning with noisy labels. However, we observed that the advantage of LS vanishes when we operate in a high label noise regime. Intuitively speaking, this is due to the increased entropy of $\mathbb{P}(\text{noisy label}|X)$ when the noise rate is high, in which case, further applying LS tends to "over-smooth" the estimated posterior. We proceeded to discover that several learning-with-noisy-labels solutions in the literature instead relate more closely to negative/not label smoothing (NLS), which acts counter to LS and defines as using a negative weight to combine the hard and soft labels! We provide understandings for the properties of LS and NLS when learning with noisy labels. Among other established properties, we theoretically show NLS is considered more beneficial when the label noise rates are high. We provide extensive experimental results on multiple benchmarks to support our findings too. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/UCSC-REAL/negative-label-smoothing.

Results

TaskDatasetMetricValueModel
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random2Accuracy (mean)90.37Negative-LS
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random3Accuracy (mean)90.13Negative-LS
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10N-AggregateAccuracy (mean)91.97Negative-LS
Image ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random1Accuracy (mean)90.29Negative-LS
Image ClassificationCIFAR-100NAccuracy (mean)58.59Negative-LS
Document Text ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random2Accuracy (mean)90.37Negative-LS
Document Text ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random3Accuracy (mean)90.13Negative-LS
Document Text ClassificationCIFAR-10N-AggregateAccuracy (mean)91.97Negative-LS
Document Text ClassificationCIFAR-10N-Random1Accuracy (mean)90.29Negative-LS
Document Text ClassificationCIFAR-100NAccuracy (mean)58.59Negative-LS

Related Papers

Automatic Classification and Segmentation of Tunnel Cracks Based on Deep Learning and Visual Explanations2025-07-18Adversarial attacks to image classification systems using evolutionary algorithms2025-07-17Efficient Adaptation of Pre-trained Vision Transformer underpinned by Approximately Orthogonal Fine-Tuning Strategy2025-07-17Federated Learning for Commercial Image Sources2025-07-17MUPAX: Multidimensional Problem Agnostic eXplainable AI2025-07-17CLID-MU: Cross-Layer Information Divergence Based Meta Update Strategy for Learning with Noisy Labels2025-07-16Hashed Watermark as a Filter: Defeating Forging and Overwriting Attacks in Weight-based Neural Network Watermarking2025-07-15Transferring Styles for Reduced Texture Bias and Improved Robustness in Semantic Segmentation Networks2025-07-14