PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

SARI: SIMPLISTIC AVERAGE AND ROBUST IDENTIFICATION BASED NOISY PARTIAL LABEL LEARNING

Darshana Saravanan, Naresh Manwani, Vineet Gandhi

self/semi-supervised learningPartial Label LearningWeakly Supervised Learning
57.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
54.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
47.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Partial label learning (PLL) is a weakly-supervised learning paradigm where each training instance is paired with a set of candidate labels (partial label), one of which is the true label. Noisy PLL (NPLL) relaxes this constraint by allowing some partial labels to not contain the true label, enhancing the practicality of the problem. Our work centers on NPLL and presents a minimalistic framework called SARI that initially assigns pseudo-labels to images by exploiting the noisy partial labels through a weighted nearest neighbour algorithm. These pseudo-label and image pairs are then used to train a deep neural network classifier with label smoothing and standard regularization techniques. The classifier's features and predictions are subsequently employed to refine and enhance the accuracy of pseudo-labels. SARI combines the strengths of Average Based Strategies (in pseudo labelling) and Identification Based Strategies (in classifier training) from the literature. We perform thorough experiments on four datasets and compare SARI against nine NPLL and PLL methods from the prior art. SARI achieves state-of-the-art results in all studied settings, obtaining substantial gains in fine-grained classification and extreme noise settings.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 30 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 47% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)